AGIA TERMINATION / SKIN IN THE GAME

 Ding Dong AGIA is dead. Any predictions on the degree of State participation?  I'm guessing an eighth or more.  An eighth would equal $7.5 billion which should be a manageable figure for the state.

Why this is Good:

1. AGIA may have worked in a shale gas free world,but it was absolutely doomed after shale gas gathered momentum in the lower 48.

2. State participation gives the project better financing  options and terms.

3.  Alignment - State interest are better served as partners.

4.  Revenue - as an investor the State stands to receive a return on the investment.

5. Agreements are forthcoming - I have to assume the Governor wouldn't make this announcement unless the grand deal was about to signed.

6.  A Flat Gross Tax on gas sounds like fiscal certainty at long last?

What would make this better:

1. LNG Buyer participation - nothing says that won't happen, but LNG customer participation could strengthen the project. 

What could go wrong:

1. Just about anything and everything can go wrong at this stage.  The problem with grand deals is that somebody or group will feel left out or abused by the deal, then the lawsuit phase of the project begins.  I hope the project survives that stage but hang on to your hat.

Good luck Governor, this is a big step in the right direction.


Press Release from Alaska Governor Sean Parnell (LINK), text:

January 10, 2014, Anchorage, Alaska – Governor Sean Parnell today announced that the State of Alaska will pursue becoming an equity partner in the Alaska LNG project. The governor also announced the state will terminate its involvement with TransCanada as its licensee under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA), and partner with the company in a more traditional commercial agreement.

“For the first time in our state’s history, the framework is in place to build an all-Alaska gasline on Alaska’s terms and in Alaskans’ interests,” Governor Parnell said. “We have all the necessary parties to make an Alaska gasline project go - three producers, a pre-eminent pipeline builder, an entity in AGDC that can carry Alaskans’ interests, and state agencies responsible for the royalties and taxes.”
The governor stated he soon expects a commercial agreement, known as a Heads of Agreement, for the Alaska LNG project. The agreement is anticipated to be signed by Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips, TransCanada, the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), and by the commissioners of the Departments of Revenue and Natural Resources. The Heads of Agreement will be subject to public review by the Legislature.

“As a partner in the gasline project, Alaska will control its own destiny,” Governor Parnell said. “Ownership ensures we either pay ourselves for project services, or negotiate and ensure the lowest possible costs. As a partner, Alaskans stand to gain more.”

Governor Parnell also intends to introduce legislation addressing how the state will manage its gas resources by authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to modify certain leases, and enter into shipping agreements to move and sell the state’s natural gas. The legislation will propose moving from a variable net tax to a flat gross tax for North Slope gas, allow certain leases to pay production taxes with gas, and enable the Departments of Revenue and Natural Resources to manage the state’s gas revenues.

“While most Alaskans have seen past efforts to develop a large gas project falter for various reasons, this time is different,” Governor Parnell added. “AGDC is our ‘ace in the hole,’ meaning we can still opt for the smaller volume ASAP project.”
###

Video

Other Pipelines and Projects

The Alaska Gas Pipeline and associated LNG plant is, according to all the evidence I can gather, dead for at least another decade.  The slides presented with the ExxonMobil second quarter earning conference call still list Alaska as one of the "Upstream LNG future opportunities".  See page 17 of the presentation slide set.

 

The Alaska LNG project does not even rate a bullet for explanation and none of the analyst in attendance had any interest in Alaska LNG.  Here's the only mention of the Alaska LNG rpoject:

We also continue to assess other LNG opportunities in Alaska, Australia, Russia and Tanzania. A range of factors will be considered before any final investment decision is made, in particular, the fiscal and regulatory regime, market conditions, and capital costs.(Transcript Link)

They did mention that pesky concept of fiscal and regulatory regime for  the umpteenth time but I don't expect Alaska to sit up and listen, Tanzania might get in the game, but Alaska can't stop hating long enough to cut a good durable deal.  In the mean time other projects emerge or fade in response to market forces.

The Russian Shtokman project has been canceled. This project was an offshore version of the Alaska project with a combination of gas exports via pipeline and 15 MTPA of LNG.  The gas production rate was about half of the Alaska gas project size and the stated cost was about a quarter of the cost of the Alaska gas project.  The cost estimate seems light and I suspect the refined cost estimate pushed the project over the cliff of feasibility. Chalk up another victory to North American shale gas  I expect other marginal project to be cancelled as shale gas LNG moves forward.

New project of the week - $12 Billion TransCanada Energy East Project. The project involves conversion of a gas pipeline to oil and a total of 2700 miles of line across the Canada. Shipping for 900,000 BPD of the 1.1 million BPD capacity has already been contracted.

 

Nice job Canada - The project recycles an old pipeline and displaces imported oil. Jobs, Jobs Jobs - it's all about Jobs.

North Slope Producer Applies for LNG Export Licence

If you think this is good news for the Alaska gas line and LNG project you would be wrong.

The 4 BCF / 30 MTPA LNG project is being developed by WCC LNG, an entity owned by  Exxon Mobil and Imperial Oil Resources. The project will be built in the Kitimat and Prince Rupert area.

• LINK TO APPLICATION DOCUMENTS
• LINK TO APPLICATION

There's talk of an Alaska LNG project announcement soon (no later than 30 Jun 13).  That may just be wishful thinking -The WCC application has all but one of the ingredients needed for an Alaska LNG project, i.e. it's not in Alaska.

The project will be based on Canadian shale gas resources but may ultimately recieve gas from other sources:

The LNG Terminal will access gas primarily from the WCSB. Given the  ntegrated nature of the North American gas markets and pipeline network, gas supply could also potentially come from other Canadian or North American basins over the life of the LNG Terminal.

 So maybe some day an Alaska gas line to Canada may send gas to an export terminal in Canada. By someday I mean decades from now.

This news combined with the Petronas Canada LNG project announcement leads me to believe that Canada will export LNG before North Slope gas is exported.


The cost of the WCC project is not stated and the project is not approved yet.  This non-Alaska Exxon Mobil LNG terminal may become a powerful bargaining chip in negotiations with the State of Alaska.  Alaskans won't like that and I'll bet Exxon Mobil comes out the winner no matter which project goes forward.

The good news for Alaska, is that the Canadian upstream is not as developed as the North Slope upstream which means the unit cost of West Coast Canadian LNG may be within 10% of the cost of North Slope LNG exported from South Central Alaska - that 10% may offer room to negotiate.

Know Your Competition

The progress and possibilities of American LNG projects have been neatly summarized in a competitive bracket format (Article Link), (Bracket PDF Link).

There are no Western Canadian projects on the bracket, but Alaska's Gas Pipeline / LNG project is listed as a wildcard.

It's a good summary and informative in terms of the projects that are competing for LNG investment dollars.

Spoiler alert - Alaska may not be winning!

A Good Week

Good news #1.  Alaska Governor Sean Parnell is making the rounds in Korea and Japan doing what an Alaskan Governor should have been doing since the price of natural gas tanked four years ago.  The Governor's web site features a picture of the Governor smiling, standing next to the US Ambassador to South Korea. That's worth one cowbell, but no more.  Next time the photo op needs to include a living breathing smiling LNG customer.  LNG buyers are making a push to de-link LNG prices from crude oil prices (LINK).  This could be the right time to offer the first delinked LNG supply.  Imagine a long term contract based on cost plus a fixed fee with cost escalators to track inflation rather than the roller coaster linkage to crude oil prices.  Reduced risk for the buyers, producers, and transporters should make a project more appealing.  It's time to get creative Governor.  Buyers want to commoditize LNG - run with that.

Good news #2  Great Bear wants to accelerate their drilling program. Actions speak louder than words.  Keep it up!

September is drawing to a close - still hoping for some more good news.

Losing Our Shirts on Natural Gas

So it's official - Exxon is not happy with dirt cheap natural gas (LINK):

On Wednesday Exxon Chief Executive Rex Tillerson broke from the previous company line that it wasn't being hurt by natural gas prices, admitting that the Irving, Texas-based firm is among those hurting from the price slump. 

"We are all losing our shirts today." Mr. Tillerson said in a talk before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "We're making no money. It's all in the red."

This Weeks Items of Note

No real news on the Alaska Gas Line, so here are some gas industry related tidbits:

• Shell expands LNG option for 18-wheelers.  Good, gas displaces lower 48 oil imports it also creates a new demand for lower 48 shale gas.
• TransCanada to build pipeline for Shell LNG plant.  Money well spent.  One third the capacity of the Alaska Gas Line at one fifth the price (LNG plant cost excluded). Another Link
• Gas Line Options
• Lower 48 Gas will displace coal for power generation. Combined cycle gas fired plants are the wave of the future.
• A reminder that all LNG investments are risky, things may turn sour in Australia.
• Dragging their heals on LNG exports.  The feds aren't about to move on energy projects until the elections are over.

Team Alaska - Missing

Japan continues to lobby American officials on the topic of LNG exports (Platt's Link).  Quote:

Japanese officials will meet with a US delegation headed by Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman later Tuesday to ask that Washington allow exports of LNG to Japan, the world's biggest importer of liquefied natural gas, a Japanese delegate said. 

Platts assessed its Japan/Korea marker Monday at $15.45/MMBtu for April, while its Northwest and Southwest European markers were assessed at $10.95 and $11.35, respectively, for April. In contrast, the NYMEX April gas futures contract settled at $2.269 Monday.

Where's all the Alaskan leadership?  Senators Murkowski and Begich, Governor Parnell, Representative Don Young  - where are you when LNG customers come knocking?  You would think a project to sell Alaskan LNG priced at $12 -$15 would motivate these elected leaders to weigh in and lend a hand, a photo op, a trade mission, something.  Instead they are missing and silent.  The LNG for Japan opportunity may be the last chance for decades.

Go Pedro

The Alaska Dispatch has a good letter from Pedro van Meurs (LINK).  Pedro has replied to the Concerned's invitation to run for Governor.  Both the invitation and the reply are humorous and point to the root cause of Alaska's ongoing failure to build a gas pipeline.  Pedro says:

Alaska has not lifted a finger to attract new investment from a fiscal perspective. In fact, Alaska does not even have useable fiscal terms for heavy oil, shale oil and natural gas that can be published in a simple investor brochure. How can Alaska attract investors in this way when other nations (Canada, Lower 48, Australia, Brazil, et al.) offer attractive well defined terms?

And

Unless substantial policy and fiscal changes are introduced that encourage large scale investment in heavy oil, shale oil and natural gas in Alaska, as is being done in competing jurisdictions, the future of oil and gas production in Alaska is bleak.

Sadly I agree fully with the last paragraph.  At today's gas prices I can't understand why Alaska doesn't take bold action to get things rolling. I know the Alaska constitution says "The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people" but too many Alaskans focus on the "maximum benefit" rather than the whole sentence including  "utilization, development".  No gas will ever be utilized or developed unless Alaskans accept what Pedro is telling them.

My idea of a good incentive program is a combination of tax holidays and flat taxes. Pick a flat tax rate for new oil and gas and declare a tax holiday for new oil and gas sales.  Imagine the effort that would go into a gas  pipeline if there was a potential payoff for early completion, otherwise sit back and watch the rest the world trade LNG, develop shale gas resources and build the big pipelines.  Alaskans can cling "maximum benefit"but its really about competing. Pedro tried to warn you.

Suggested Reading

The reality of the lower 48 shale gas glut may have finally sunk into Alaskan policy makers (see previous entry).  Here's a good paper on the dynamics of the shale gas business. (Musings From the Oil Patch LINK) Turns out $3/MMBTU is an insane price for shale gas drilling.  The data indicates at current prices sane people stop drilling for dry gas, i.e. gas not loaded with higher value liquids.

Impacts to Alaskan gas projects: Less drilling leads to higher prices. At $6/MMBTU the rigs switch back to gas.  A gas market oscillating between $3 and $6/MMBTU is unlikely to justify a $40 billion gas line.

IF, and that's a big if, Alaska and the oil companies can align their common interest and build an in state line and LNG export plant then it's possible that the state and the producers will benefit from higher lower 48 gas prices.

2011 - Year of the Yawn

I had greater expectations for the Alaska Gas Pipeline in 2011. To recap -

1. The open season process was expected to yield announcements of precedent agreements for long term commitments to ship gas.  The agreements may or may not have been reached, but no public announcement was forthcoming.  Chances are any agreements reached are so heavily conditioned that they represent no commitment to do anything in the here and now. 
2. In 2011 I expected a viable shipper for a 7 MMTPA Valdez LNG plant to step forward.  What actually happened was that Governor Parnell voiced support for a tidewater LNG project. The Governor's comments had the unintended consequences of delaying submission of resource reports by the Alaska Pipeline Project (TransCanada and ExxonMobil).
3. 2011 Started with two Alaska Gas Pipeline projects - The APP (TransCanada & Exxon Mobil) working to the scope as defined by the Alaska Gas Inducement Act (AGIA) and The Denali Project (ConocoPhillips & BP).  I had an expectation that the projects would merge in 2011.  Instead Denali folded in May citing "open season efforts have not resulted in the customer commitments necessary to continue work on its Alaska North Slope gas pipeline project".  

What's next? - for starters spot Henry Hub gas closed the year at $2.97/MMBTU (see chart for 2011 natural gas prices).   That's astonishing and sobering to any proponent of an Alaskan Gas Pipeline.  Gas that cheap in December is partially due to a mild lower 48 winter but mainly a function of  the glut of shale gas. The 200 day average price is right at $4/MMBTU - essentially the low profit range to drill and produce a shale gas well.

In 2012 the North American gas markets will have little appetite for Alaskan Gas.  Billions will be spent to build Gulf of Mexico LNG export capacity and preliminary studies will be launched to look into the viability of at least one lower 48 Gas to Liquids (GTL) plant.  Anti-fracking stories will continue with little effect on the continued development of lower 48 shale gas resources. The annual average price of 2012 gas may fall within the $3.50 - $5.00/MMBTU range. No new nuclear power will come on line in 2012, but a few gas fired plants will come on line to replace aging coal plants.

Throughout 2012 Alaskans will come to grips with the increasing unattractiveness of Alaskan Gas.  The best comment this year came from Steve Kirchhoff, Vice President – Americas, ExxonMobil Gas and Power Marketing Company in a presentation to the Resource Development Council of Alaska in this video. In this presentation Kirchoff states that "You can't dabble at LNG"

Shale Gas Apocalypse* - Ending?

What would it take to end the shale gas apocalypse* ?  Maybe a ton of new laws constraining shale gas development and destroying thousands of good paying jobs, or maybe.....Monetize and export shale gas as LNG, and convert shale gas to liquid fuels.

I favor LNG exports and gas-to-liquids (GTL) for three reasons - Jobs building LNG export plants, Jobs building GTL plants and Jobs building the Alaska Gas Pipeline.

It's one thing for this lonely blog to promote the idea but the industry is beginning to take advantage of abundant, cheap shale gas.

Today we have news that LNG company Cheniere is planning a second LNG export plant  near Corpus Christi Texas (Rigzone Link) (Marketwatch Link) RigZone quote:

Cheniere Energy announced Friday that its wholly owned subsidiary, Corpus Christi Liquefaction is developing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal at one of Cheniere's existing sites that was previously permitted for a regasification terminal. The LNG export terminal site is located in San Patricio County, Texas , and it is anticipated that the terminal would be primarily supplied by reserves from the Eagle Ford Shale, located approximately sixty miles northwest of Corpus Christi . The proposed liquefaction project ("Corpus Christi Project") is being designed for up to three trains capable of producing in aggregate up to 13.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa).

The combined export volume of the Cheniere export  projects will equal about 4 BCFD which is about 88% of the capacity of the Alaska Gas Pipeline.  What's great about the LNG export terminals and GTL plants is that they represent new demand.  The scale of these projects is large enough to move markets and increase the gas price, hopefully into a long term stable range that will promote the Alaska Gas Pipeline.

*(my term for super low natural gas prices caused by lower 48 shale gas production)

More Gulf Coast LNG Sold

Cheniere Energy Partners has signed another deal to export LNG from Sabine Pass - this time to the Indian utility company Gail, (LINK) and quote:

State-owned gas utility GAIL India today said it has signed an agreement to buy 3.5 million tonnes a year of LNG for 20 years from a US firm to meet India's growing energy needs.
"GAIL has signed a Sales and Purchase Agreement (SPA) for supply of LNG over 20 years with Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, a subsidiary of Cheniere Energy Partners, LP, USA for supply of 3.5 million tonnes per annum of LNG," the company said in a press statement here.  

Supplies may start as early as 2016."Under the SPA, GAIL will pay Sabine Liquefaction as per contractual provisions on a Henry Hub (US gas benchmark) basis after transfer of custody on FOB. LNG will be loaded onto GAIL's vessels," it said.The SPA has a term of 20 years commencing upon the date of first commercial delivery, and an extension option of up to 10 years.

It's interesting to note that the price of LNG under this agreement is indexed to Henry Hub vs. WTI or Brent crude.  That indicates that the buyer believes in long term low Henry Hub prices and sought to de-link their gas price from crude.  For Cheniere, indexing to Henry hub allows them to operate the plant and collect a predictable margin regardless of variations in the crude market.

Of course this is all very interesting for Alaskans.  First - Exporting lower 48 shale gas as LNG is a good thing because it builds support and stabilizes demand for L48 gas.  Second - it shows that long term LNG deals are possible, but the terms of the agreements have to be smart and fair to both parties. Third - I'm interested to see announcements of LNG export deals vs. announcements of new combined cycle power plants.  The export market may beat domestic power producers to the punch.

ConocoPhillips - LNG Makes Sense for Stranded Gas

ConocoPhillips is busy around the world with new LNG projects.  According to this article (LINK) Australia is first in ConocoPhillips mind but they are looking at potential projects in the US and Canada.  Quotes:

ConocoPhillips is studying North America's potential to export natural gas, but it isn't high on its priority list and any rush to build terminals on the U.S. coast could face opposition from Washington, Al Hirshberg, the company's Senior Vice President, Planning and Strategy, said Thursday.

"I just don't see it," Hirshberg said. "Five years from now Queensland will be a major spot on the map, as well as Western Australia in terms of LNG export, and the U.S. Gulf coast won't be, that's my prediction." 

"Canada's a little different," he told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview. "The gas in Canada is stranded, it really doesn't have access to a market so spending the money to liquefy it and get it ready for export is going to make long-term sense."

Similar logic may apply to stranded Alaskan Gas.  Probably not, but exportation of other gas plays helps build price stability which in turn helps the prospects of the Alaska Gas Pipeline.

Shell, Shale, and GTL

Cheap shale gas in the lower 48 is attracting the attention of LNG exporters (LINK) and now Shell is looking at building a large Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) plant in the United States. (LINK). Quote (link and highlights added):

By JAMES HERRON  Royal Dutch Shell is in the early stages of planning projects to turn natural gas into fuels like diesel in the US, of similar scale to its huge project in Qatar, Andy Brown, executive vice president of Shell, said in Qatar Monday.  "We are looking for places where gas is cheap and [oil] products are expensive," he said at a press briefing at the World Petroleum Congress in Doha, Qatar. "Clearly the US is something we're looking at."  Shell is only interested in large-scale projects similar to the $18 billion Pearl gas-to-liquids plant it has developed in Qatar, Brown said. The first phase of Pearl GTL is now producing at close to full capacity and the second phase started over the weekend, he said.

 What can an $18 billion investment yield?  According to the Shell website Pearl converts 320,000 BOE of gas into:

• - 140 kboe/d of gas-to-liquids products (2 trains)
• - 120 kboe/d of natural gas liquids and ethane

At today's prices I estimate that's equal to about $8.5 billion in gross annual product revenue.  The 1.8 BCFD of gas feed stock  would cost about $2.5 Billion leaving a gross margin of  $6 Billion.  Assume operation, maintenance and utility cost of $1 Billion and a Pearl type GTL plant will yield $5 billion annually EBIT.  After taxes the rate of return is in the attractive range.  I assume the capital cost in the lower 48 will be higher than Qatar, so the rate of return is probably in the 12% to 15% range.

How does this relate to an Alaskan Gas Pipeline?  First don't get your hopes up for Shell to build a world scale GTL plant in Alaska - construction cost are much higher than the lower 48 and the pipeline infrastructure is already in place on the Gulf Coast.  A lower 48 GTL plant of this scale does help Alaska - it soaks up 1.8 BCFD of gas, roughly 40% of the 4.5 BCFD capacity of the Alaskan Gas Pipeline.  Keep in mind GTL is expensive, but outfits like Shell can buy gas at $3.5/MMBTU and sell liquid products at $16/MMBTU.  There's also the possibility that more lower 48 GTL plants will be built and the gas demand could easily exceed the volume of the Alaska Gas Pipeline.

Ultimately sponging up cheap lower 48 shale gas with GTL plants and LNG export plants will help create demand for Alaska's gas.

 

Best use of Shale Gas - Export it

Cheniere project moving forward to export lower 48 shale gas (LINK).

The cost: $5 Billion for two trains producing a total of 9 million tons per year.(LINK2)

You can use the unit rate to estimate the cost of an Alaskan LNG export plant.  The Cheniere volume is roughly 25% of the proposed Alaska gas line volume. Add "Alaska" factors and you find that $25 billion is need to build the plant that could export the full 4.5 BCFD of Alaska gas.  That's on top of the pipeline cost.

New Gas & New Jobs

The Alaska Dispatch has this article by Amanda Coyne on the release of the Point Thomson EIS (LINK)(Point Thomson EIS Link).

There's no point in developing Point Thomson unless you believe in a future Alaska gas pipeline.

Follow the money - a producer (ExxonMobil) is spending real money with an expectation of a real return on investment.

Real jobs are being created too.  Check out "Careers" at Fluor.  Recent job postings mention Point Thomson by name.

Alaska LNG - Back in the news

Governor Sean Parnell has taken a position on an Alaska Gas Line option - LNG.  From ADN (LINK):

Parnell, in a speech to an oil and gas industry group in Anchorage, said he wants the major North Slope players - Exxon Mobil Corp., BP and ConocoPhillips - to coalesce behind a project that would allow for liquefied natural gas to be shipped overseas. He wants them to do this under the framework of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. If they do, the state can be flexible, including talking tax and royalty terms, he said.

Also see Amanda Coyne's Alaska Dispatch article (LINK)

LNG to tidewater is not a new idea.  It's an option included in the Alaska Gas Inducement Act  (AGIA).  What is news is the the Governor can't envision how Alaska Gas will ever compete with abundant lower 48 shale gas.  Of course the public is not in the loop on the facts and figures but it's believable when you look at the capital cost, the taxes and the low price of lower 48 shale gas.

The big news in his statement is "the state can be flexible, including talking tax and royalty terms". Wow!  This is the one area under the State's control. Getting back to the economics - Lower 48 LNG import facilities are considering conversion to exporting. An Alaskan LNG export facility will need to compete with those projects so the Governor is going to have to be extremely flexible.  Politically this may be the only option with a chance.  The All-Alaska aspect of the plan should resonate with the voters, especially when it supplies affordable fuel to so many along the route.Alaska's competition in the Lower 48 is busy lining up customers and cutting deals (LINK: Cheniere lands customer for LNG export).

Is this just an empty challenge?  Let's hope not.  I'd like to think that the option is thoroughly vetted and in the realm of the possible for the State and the producers.  There's always one element missing from announcements on Alaska's LNG plans - a BUYER.  I'll hold my applause for Governor Parnell until he makes a LNG announcement with a producer CEO and an Asian buyer CEO standing close by.

Japan pays $19/MMBTU for LNG

Mega Projects like the Alaska Gas Pipeline don't get funded on the basis of a sky high spot price, but $19/MMBTU LNG vs. $3.48/MMBTU gas in the lower 48 should stimulate a new long term LNG strategy by Japan and Alaska.  (LINK). The LNG price paid vs. lower 48 gas price leads to two conclusions. 1) Alaska gas is stranded indefinitely and 2) Either the Gulf Coast or Alaska have an opportunity to strike long term deals with Japan for LNG sales.

The chart above shows how the Japanese price paid for LNG diverged from other markets in late '08.  Here's a chart of Japan's LNG import volumes:

Japan's current LNG imports equal about two times Alaska's potential gas production.  I've crunched and few numbers and it looks like $10 to $12 per MMBTU for Alaskan LNG would justify a project. 

Mega Projects like this require risk mitigation. Typically LNG prices are indexed to crude oil prices.  Using that pricing mechanism places too much downside risk on Alaska in the event oil prices take a dive as the economy continues to sputter.  What would work is fixed pricing until the project reaches payout, then index to crude.  That would allow the project to reach payout at the soonest possible date.

The "do nothing" option (Alaska's current path) will lead to some incremental development of Gulf Coast LNG export capacity with a marginal impact on lower 48 gas prices.  That impact will not be enough to shove prices back into the $6/MMBTU range needed to justify the Alaska Gas Pipeline.

Japan Wants USA LNG

I wonder if LNG hawk Bill Walker is on a plane to sell his idea of Valdez LNG to the Japanese?  From Bloomberg (LINK):

Japan’s senior vice minister of trade and industry, Seishu Makino, asked U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu at a meeting yesterday in San Francisco to increase LNG exports, Akinobu Yoshikawa, deputy manager for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Division, told reporters today in Tokyo.

“I believe we gained the U.S.’s understanding to some extent,” said Yoshikawa. “We can’t buy LNG from the U.S. unless the Department of Energy approves LNG plant owners to export. There is one plant that recently won the approval and there are two others in progress.

Japan is a motivated buyer, a long term customer, they can make X120 pipe - where's the photos of the happy Alaskan trade delegation to Japan? Come on guys - time to get your head in the game.

The only good news in the story is that Gulf Coast LNG exports to Japan will sponge up cheap shale gas and improve to overall prospects for any North American gas project.