A 50 billion dollar pipeline nobody needs?
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.
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.
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.
If the Alaska natural gas pipeline is uneconomical due to new discoveries in the lower 48..... Then so be it. Means we will have a good reserve of Alaska natgas to be tapped later on when prices rise
Obama has already made appointments of radicals here in Texas dedicated to shutting down gas production here. Alaska is unique in its committment to energy. Even Texas is being overcome by enviro radicals.
Well, let’s see now. Way back in ‘82 I think it was, I worked on a natural gas pipeline up in the state of Washington. It was a 42 in. pipeline bringing natural gas from Canada to California, a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) project. The scuttlebutt on the jobsite was that the pipeline was buried alongside an existing 36 inch pipeline and was supplying natural gas to California. One condition of the sale of that Canadian natural gas was that it could not be sold or provided to any business in California that would be considered in competition with any business in Canada.
California got the gas and Canada got the $$$ and we pipefitters earned a salary for the work we did.
That 36” and 42” line are still providing natural gas to California from Canada. Gotta wonder if gas from Alaska will be more economical than the gas from Canada?!?
Forget the politics - instead, consider the possible benefits of natural gas produce in the USA, transported to the lower 48 (including Southern California) via a pipeline to supply the growing needs of US citizens and businesses.
Seems a win/win situation for Alaska and the lower 48. And, if memory serves correctly, Sarah Palin is now the former Gov. of Alaska, but what the heck do I know, I’m just a dumb retired plumber/pipefitter.
I can go on and on with all the comments you made but really the best argument you have is weak at best.
I like what rae4palin said
Sarah is unabashedly pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Liberty, pro-family, pro-America, pro-constitution, pro-gun and talks a good talk on limited government but the verdict is still out on that.
She is the best candidate we have period.