Posted on 12/19/2005 10:14:48 PM PST by HAL9000
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - An antitrust lawsuit filed Monday against Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP PLC claims the two oil giants are restricting the nation's supply of natural gas and keeping prices at record highs.The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Fairbanks, says the two companies acted together to eliminate competition for the exploration, development and marketing of natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to U.S. markets.
"The only reason for them to collusively not to sell is to try to continue the scarcity that has driven natural gas prices to historic highs," said David Boies, the attorney for the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, which filed the lawsuit.
BP and Exxon Mobil are two of Alaska's biggest oil and gas leaseholders, and are the operators for the North Slope's largest oil and gas fields, Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson. Alaska's North Slope is estimated to have at least 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, which could supply 7 percent to 10 percent of the nation's natural gas, Boies said.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at news.moneycentral.msn.com ...
Let's just say, not in Alaska.
25% is probably the maximum amount allowed, but BP runs the company.
45 posted on 12/21/2005 7:04:40 AM AKST by Eva
Are we both wrong or both right?
Please stop trying to claim you know the thoughts in my head. Again, show one single statement I've made in defence of BP. You have twisted this in your mind.
I will help you out here. My reason is in support of the pipeline to Alberta. The same pipeline ConocoPhillips, BP and ExxonMobil support. And I support it for the same reasons, best economics for delivered product to market.
As you wrote:
Marine is a very lucrative end of the business
35 posted on 12/20/2005 2:36:24 PM AKST by Eva
I also agree with this statement. Marine Transportation, along with the Conversion to LNG and back to Gas, adds unneeded expense. That raises the price for the consumer and decreases the profit Alaska receives for its resources. That is my motivation.
Well, as you can see, the state of Alaska approved the pipeline through Valdez in 1999. I know that there was a change in the thinking and that Conoco went along with the change. The fact remains that BP and EXXON admitted in the WSJ article that their financial interests were best served by the longer route.
Yes, Pipeline through Cananda cost less to deliver the product to market. That is in their financial interests, as well as ConocoPhillips and Alaskas. Do you claim we should force them to use a more expensive method to bring Natural Gas to Market?
You will never convince me that BP has the best interest of the US consumers in mind in any of their dealings, they have proven otherwise too many times. Let's look again at a few of them.
1.BP stated that they didn't want to spend money on oil spill preparedness in Alaska because the state wasn't forcing them to do so, and besides they had already had to spend a lot in the North Sea area. (My husband has this statement documented.)
2. BP controls the pipeline in WA state that serves eight western states and controls the pricing of the gas that comes out of the pipeline. Whatcom county, where the pipeline originates is served directly by truck from local refineries, yet pays the highest prices in the state because the pricing is set from the end of the pipeline.
3. BP supported drilling in the ANWR until they were banned from owning additional reserves in Alaska. Now they oppose it.
4. BP has made statements approving the KYOTO treaty, even though they know that it will harm the US.
I could care less about your hatred of BP.
In this topic, the Natural Gas pipeline to Alberta, BP's interest coincide with mine.
I did not say BP has the best inerest of the US consumers in mind. Will you PLEASE stop putting words in my post that do not exist.
Look, the LNG was going to serve the CA market, which depends on natural gas to run it's power plants. BP and EXXON are comfortable with the status quo in that market.
All I was saying is that BP has tried to scuttle the LNG port idea for profit making reason. BP is all about control of the industry in all areas.
Would you please back up your claim that BP opposes drilling in ANWR? If you can show this, we have a topic we both can bash BP on.
Too bad, it looks as though you may lose on this one. But I am sure that the battle is not over, and I really don't care what the out come is because it won't effect me either way.
I don't have the statements at my finger tips, but they have made public statements concerning no drilling in the ANWR.
And the Alberta Hub, has existing Natural Gas Pipelines that serve California. The Pipeline through Canada does not exclude the West Coast, but opens up more domestic markets and limits the possibility of sending US Gas to Japan, as ConocoPhillips is currently doing with Nikiski for the past 35 years.
Well, Conoco wasn't shipping Alaskan LNG to Japan because CONOCO didn't own any interest in Alaska until the so-called Conoco-Phillips merger.
Look the LNG line was approved in 1999, way before anyone proposed the Canadian route. My guess is that it wasn't CONOCO that originally proposed the Valdez route. CONOCO was just in place to convert some of the new builds into LNG carriers.
I agree that ConocoPhillips has not been the responsible part for the entire 35 years, but they continue to ship it today.
Yeah, shipping Egyptian LNG to Japan. You're mixing apples and oranges. Like I said I don't care which pipeline gets approved. I don't have a horse in this race. I was just commenting that BP's MO is control of the industry, which usually results in the restriction of trade.
If BP was smart and not so self centered as a company, they would turn over the negotiations to CONOCO, because CONOCO does not have a history with the state of Alaska, that would work against them. BP would also turn over control of the pipeline to Conoco. But that would all go against the grain of BP.
Can you read past the first paragraph? The second reads:
The liquefaction technology is an enhanced version of the technology utilized for ConocoPhillips' Kenai, Alaska, facility. The Kenai facility was constructed by Bechtel Corporation in 1969 and has since demonstrated more than 33 years of uninterrupted LNG supply to Japan.
Interesting, is that technology that was developed by ARCO, then? So they were allowed to sell the LNG, but not the oil?
Anyway, the road block to LNG in the US is the not in our back yard attitude toward the ports.
I believe they will have them anyways. Alaska is not going to meet their entire need. LNG will be brought into the US from multiple ports. Areas that refuse to allow ports can pay added cost to transport by pipeline from the areas that due have the ports. Design and Construction of LNG ports is becoming a booming business. I have gotten several job offers to move back south to be on one of the teams. The NIMBY's have hurt California over and over, why would it by different this time?
Merry Christmas Eva
I think it was partly due to restriction put on "North Slope" production. Also at the time, 1969, there was a glut of Natural Gas in Southcentral Alaska. Not the case today, there is talk of building an LNG terminal to import Natural Gas into the Anchorage, Kenai & Mat-Su valley.
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.