Weather
Pipeline For In-State Natural Gas Use Could Be Gaining MomentumDittman says that impatience bodes well for the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation.Related Content
Alaskans want movement on a natural gas pipeline. That's the conclusion of a group pushing an in-state pipeline focusing on local consumption. And it's the way a prominent pollster sees it, too. Pollster Dave Dittman says the seemingly endless talk about Alaska's energy options, including a natural gas pipeline, has exasperated the public. "It's 'quit talking about all of our options, all of the things we could do, all of the things we might do' -- whether it's hydro or the big line, the little line, the spur line. ‘Do something.’ This is coming up soon -- the crisis that people foresee." Dittman says that impatience bodes well for the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation. That public entity is recommending that the state finance a $7.5 billion pipeline from the North Slope to Southcentral to provide gas for the Railbelt by 2019. Dan Fauske, the corporation president, told the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce that it's a trans-generational project. "I think we're making a 50- to 100-year decision with a project like this, or something similar. We have to stop thinking in two-year or four-year increments. You're thinking about -- this is a project that's going to be around long after everybody in this room is long gone. And I don't mean to be morbid." Fauske says that a confidential meeting with potential industrial users of the gas was a big success. "We were sitting around that morning, I remember going 'we might have to take these bagels down to bean's cafe; I don't know if anybody's going to come.' we ended up having heavy turnout. And when you consider that we've gone from not sure what the interest was to non-binding expressions of interest that have maxed out the capacity on the line, I think you as Alaskans should be pleased. That's a significant piece of information." But Bill Walker of the Alaska Gasline Port Authority says a small pipeline without an export component would be an enormous missed opportunity. "We have billions of dollars we could be bringing in, but when somebody else fills that market, we're not going to. It's something that we subsidize and pay for, or something that brings money into all of Alaska." Dittman says polling he did this spring shows that the public views the issues differently. "Export is not that big of a deal. The money for the state Legislature, or money for government, or money even for the permanent fund isn't nearly as important, at least then -- and I still think it is now -- as it is to have the jobs that come from it and have local supplies." If that's the case, the project known as the Alaska Stand-Alone Pipeline could have momentum.
|
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled.
Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.
|
You have indicated this comment should be removed.
The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .
Fairbanks said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 2:07 PM
If they would build the gas line already it would improve air quality also. I have gas at my house and last winter the only "pollution" coming from the house was steam, and very little of that. Build the darn thing already so people can afford to stay here.
70963514jmacinak said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 1:52 PM
Pretty easy to say it`s a good investment now with taxpayer money isn`t it Mr Fauske. If it was your money Dan would you invest in that absurdly inadequate pipeline? expecting a profit??? How about after it comes in at double or triple the estimate?, as is so much the case on large arctic projects? (think TAPS final costs..from 1 billion to NINE billion) How about when we need more gas and that little line won`t handle the growth? This small line will condemn Alaskans to high energy and fuel costs forever..if we`re dumb enough to spend billions to SUBSIDIZE THIS CONDITION OURSELVES?? Lunacy. Machiavellian. This is Parnell`s attempt to placate Alaskans while he dilly-dally s with his buds/old bosses in the industry under the guise of AGIA,..a failed model now due to shale gas. Alaskans deserve what we get if we fall for this ruse like we fell for the old "ELF" scheme all those years.
70962701Anonymous said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 1:51 PM
Pretty easy to say it`s a good investment now with taxpayer money isn`t it Mr Fauske. If it was your money Dan would you invest in that absurdly inadequate pipeline? expecting a profit??? How about after it comes in at double or triple the estimate?, as is so much the case on large arctic projects? (think TAPS final costs..from 1 billion to NINE billion) How about when we need more gas and that little line won`t handle the growth? This small line will condemn Alaskans to high energy and fuel costs forever..if we`re dumb enough to spend billions to SUBSIDIZE THIS CONDITION OURSELVES?? Lunacy. Machiavellian. This is Parnell`s attempt to placate Alaskans while he dilly-dally s with his buds/old bosses in the industry under the guise of AGIA,..a failed model now due to shale gas. Alaskans deserve what we get if we fall for this ruse like we fell for the old "ELF" scheme all those years.
70962631Bob Woolery said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 11:08 AM
Converting the existing 48 inch and running a parallel smaller line for the remaining flow of crude oil might well be the most economical.
70953422Rocco_Regio said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 10:14 AM
The "just do something" approach is how Alaska ends up throwing money at things like a doomed fish processing plant. The state would have to subsidize an in-state line to the point of insanity. Is that really the best use of our precarious surplus? Come on, people, don't panic your way into a bad decision.
70950164gee said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 8:55 AM
when you can buy the natural gas for half the price from the lower 48 is it realy cost effective thats what needs to be studyed and not by our goverment becuase a few high powered officals will fill there pockets on this deal and the people will be left to flip the bill!!!
70945301Wanting to Keep my Lights on said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 7:00 AM
We don't have time for bickering. Let's get the in-state line built so that we all can keep our lights on and keep the heat running in the winter. In addition, the in-state line will attract new businesses and create new jobs. Does anybody remember Agrium? Big fertilizer plant? Employed lots of people? They left the state because they didn't have a sure source of energy here in Alaska. How ironic is that? Instead of adding to our exports, we should be focusing on diversifying our economic base. Our first objective must be to have a source of fuel available here in Alaska. Exporting gas won't diversify our economy, and hoping that it adds money to the State treasury in 15 or 20 years(the earliest that an AGIA pipeline could get built and start operating) won't keep my lights on 7 years down the road when the Cook Inlet gas is gone. If we start today we could have gas flowing through an in-state line by then. We need to start this project now!
70938864dolia G. said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 6:33 AM
My comment WAS NOT add to . WHY?
70937354Dolia G. said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 6:13 AM
I say YES if US alaskas going to benefit of the deal, We want divident from it, like the OIL pfs.
70936114Andrew said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 5:35 AM
Lets go for it
70934027jmacinak said on Tuesday, Jul 19 at 1:21 AM
If you all remember, this was to be just a "study"...now, with the Governor`s backing it has become "the" project. Why is this administration settling for a straw for this state to breathe energy through when the voters spoke that they wanted AFFORDABLE and PLENTIFUL natural gas and gas products? Why are we pushing the AGIA compliant garden hose of JUST .500bcf a day for Alaskans to use, when the rest of the 4.5bcf stays stranded for the duration, waiting on EXXON (via transcanada..remember when Transcanada chief tony Palmer said they didn`t do SQUAT unless Exxon was sitting in the catbird seat???) Importing gas for a few years while we build a REAL pipeline infrastructure in this state would be well worth the wait. Why waste 7.5 billion??? (more with historic arctic cost over-runs!!). The fact that AGIA is D.O.A. needs to be debated in Juneau before this little garden hose gets foolishly sanctioned without thoughtful input from professionals, not Housing and Finance administrators.
70926087Waiting in Healy said on Monday, Jul 18 at 8:53 PM
The potential of the oil pipeline going down would kill the interior and slowly the rest of the state, so we need to move on this now!!!
70911623Add a comment
Most Popular