Posted on 01/31/2010 9:23:14 AM PST by Bob J
As the Long-Discussed Energy Project Finally Advances, Discoveries of Fields Outside the State Threaten Chances.
The discovery of huge new natural-gas fields across the contiguous U.S. is threatening Alaska's plans for a pipeline to export gas to the lower 48 states. Two rival consortiums, each backed by major energy companies, are competing to build the pipeline, designed to carry gas from Alaska's North Slope to continental markets. Alaskans hope that gas will help offset falling oil production, as transported here from the North Slope. .But even as the project is poised to get off the ground after decades of discussion, its viability is being called into question as energy companies have found huge new supplies of natural gas locked in dense rocks known as shale in places such as Texas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
A 50 billion dollar pipeline nobody needs?
From the article:
"The project would stretch as much as 2,000 miles from Alaska and would cost an estimated $30 billion."
Par for the course for you. To accentuate your point, just make stuff up.
Another pathetic Palin-bash from you, Bob. The planning for this pipeline goes back years, long before the current shale gas plays came into being due to improved technology and exploration techniques.
And when are you gonna start acting like a man and leave when the host of the website has asked you? Only liberals stay on someone else's property when the property owner has asked them to go.
My mistake — $41 billion per the article for the Trans-Canada project. I guess $50 billion is just the Bob J rounding method...LOL.
Open season is getting underway for AGIA. We’ll find out about the viability of this project shortly, and it won’t be affected by the Wall Street Journal or Bob J’s arithmetic....LOL.
That's the RIVAL project dumbass, not the Exxon TransCanada project. In this article they tab THAT project at 41 billion but I've seen numerous articles that peg it up to 50 billion.
Palinistas, they don't read, they don't think, they just EMOTE.
LEAVE SARAH ALONE!
To: Bob J
You need a rest.
42 posted on 01/29/2010 1:24:36 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Join the TEA Party Rebellion!! May God and TEA save the Republic!!)
Good advice.
LMAO, I’m sure you got that $50 billion number from your good buddy Andy Halcro, aka 9% Andrew, a legend in his own mind.
That pipeline will take what, 20 years to build??
Come 2030, we will need that Natural Gas
I was waiting to see if shale fracture technology was going to sink this project. Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio may be larger gas producers then Texas is, one of these days.
By the time it’s finished, we WILL need it. The US needs secure (domestic) energy supplies, that cannot be interrupted by foreign events.
Al, its like watching a dog trying to bury a bone in a marble floor.
More Bob J obsessive-compulsive drivel....
We’ll see how much that pipeline is needed when the price of natural gas shoots through the roof again soon.
Drilling Tactic Unleashes a Trove of Natural Gas—And a Backlash I guess nothing is ever a sure thing.
Oil industry has real power here, always has and they prevent this option; they'd rather it continue to burn off.
Maybe someday a line will be built to fairbanks and then prove up; continue all over Alaska. It should have already been built.
The following gives some info on each of the above options plus other possibilities. In any case they are all a long way down the road no matter which one gets selected.
Companies building Alaska natural gas pipeline prepare for open season
Lauren Krugel, THE CANADIAN PRESS
CALGARY - TransCanada Corp. (TSX:TRP) and ExxonMobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM) are about to take the next major step in the development of their Alaska pipeline, which is now estimated to cost as much as US$41 billion.
The Calgary-based firm and the U.S. energy giant filed a plan Friday with the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an open season - an invitation for producers to commit to ship their gas using the project. The proposed pipeline would be the first to tie into natural gas fields on Alaska's North Slope, eventually moving the gas to southern - and possibly international - markets.
"This filing is an important milestone for the project and Alaska," Tony Palmer, TransCanada's vice-president of Alaska development, told reporters Friday.
If the U.S. regulator approves the filing, the offer will be open to potential shippers at the end of April. The open season would last through to the end of July for U.S. shippers, while a separate process would be held in Canada.
"No matter how you measure it, the Alaska pipeline project would be an exceptional world leading project and one of the largest private investments in the history of North America," said Paul Pike the Alaska pipeline senior project manager for ExxonMobil.
The results of the open season will be used to help determine the route of the proposed pipeline.
One option to be weighed in the open season is to build a 2,737-kilometre line from Alaska to Alberta, where it would connect with TransCanada's existing network that stretches into U.S. markets.
An updated estimate puts the cost of that option between $32 billion and $41 billion. It would deliver about 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.
When TransCanada filed an application to build the project to Alaskan authorities around two years ago, the price tag had been pegged at around US$26 billion.
The earlier estimate was based on preliminary work TransCanada had done. When ExxonMobil joined forces with TransCanada in June, it was able to use its expertise in building gas treatment plants to help pin down a more accurate cost estimate for that component, Pike said.
"All that together has resulted in a refined and updated and a more comprehensive estimate," he said.
The overall economic environment has changed drastically over the past two years, TransCanada's Palmer added.
"We've also gone through an epic financial crisis in the world," he said.
The emergence of prolific new shale plays in Canada and the lower 48 U.S. states is also a "new reality in the natural gas business," Palmer said.
A second option would be to transport natural gas 1,287 kilometres to the port of Valdez, Alaska, where it would be converted into liquefied natural gas and transported by sea to North American and international markets.
The Valdez option would cost between $20 billion and $26 billion. It would be able to deliver three billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.
Both options would have an expected in-service date of 2020. It is not feasible for both proposals to go ahead.
snip
However, ConocoPhillips and BP continue to work on a competing pipeline called Denali outside of the Alaska government process.end snips
Am really glad Obama is working out for you.
When and if he goes off his Conservative agenda as you
preceive it, do post your complaint as you have been
against a true Conservative, Sarah Palin.
bttt
You are completely obsessed, Bob J. It isn’t healthy and isn’t much different than those on the left who obsess over Palin too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.