Posted on 12/19/2005 10:14:48 PM PST by HAL9000
What pipeline are you talking about?
Conoco approved the pipeline to Valdez, BP and Exxon wanted one through Canada to the mid-west. The Valdez pipeline received state approval and then it seemed as though Conoco was going to bend to the pressure from BP and Exxon and go with the longer pipeline to the mid-west. Today's reports indicate that was not really the case.
CococoPhillips supports ONLY the pipeline route that first Parallels the TAPS then the AlCan Highway on to Alberta.
This is clearly shown on the home page of the ConocoPhillips Alaska web site with the document:
http://www.conocophillipsalaska.com/347-149GasBrochure.pdf
On Oct 21st, before BP and Exxon, ConocoPhillips agreed to the State's proposal of the TAPS-AlCan-Alberta pipeline plan.
Yes, that is the pipeline that Conoco agreed to, not the one that BP and Exxon are still pushing for. After the state and Conoco agreed to the terms, BP and Exxon tried to change everything. That is what they are being criticized for.
And it is NOT the Valdez route. The first line of the article I linked you to reads:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - The state has agreed to base fiscal terms of a contract with one of the three oil companies involved in months-long negotiations to build a multibillion dollar, 2,100-mile natural gas pipeline from the North Slope, into Canada and connecting with markets in the Midwest.
Did you add the (and Conoco) yourself?
I posted a link directly form ConocoPhillips web site talking about the Candian route being the best economically. I design Oil & Gas Facilities for the North Slope and ConocoPhillips Alaska is my only client.
You do not know what you are talking about.
Yes, I added the Conoco part. My husband works for the Marine division, which built the LNG tankers to move the gas from Valdez. I am aware that there was a change in the
plan, regarding the longer route, but the article, today, indicates that the shorter route was never completely abandoned.
Where were the tankers built? In the US?
We considered it significant that Conoco wasn't included as pushing for the longer pipeline. Conoco either wasn't included in the early planning or different divisions of Conoco were not communicating.
Here is another paragraph, that might clear things up.
The port authority, created in 199 to build a gas pipeline, says it has $18 billion in federal guarantees and the permits to build a pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez in the southern part of the state, where gas would b e liquefied and loaded onto tankers. But BP and Exxon favor an alternative, longer pipeline through Canada, a pipeline over which they'd have more control, the authority charges. (This is what I was telling you about and for which the ships are already started)
New Orleans.
If the allegations are true, which I doubt, this will be very big. I can see it now at the hearings, senator Levin peering over his glasses at the CEOs saying, "Gentleman, when did you stop beating your wives?"
5.56mm
It was a simple matter to convert the plans from the ARCO tankers to LNG tankers. It was done without consulting BP and Exxon, apparently. But then neither Exxon, nor BP consulted Conoco. Marine is a very lucrative end of the business and BP is precluded from getting in on it, though they do have a straw company that they operate on the West Coast and Exxon is just gun shy and has divested their marine dept.
But ConocoPhillips Alaska IS pushing for it. It is the only project on their web site and in news releases they say is economically feasible. ConocoPhillips Alaska has no agreement or partnership with the Port Authority.
I have to question this. Earlier this year it was reported many times up here that there were NO US ship builders of LNG vessels.
That is not true. Why do you not read the links I posted to you.
To comply with the law, BP charters a fleet of ships for its Alaska trade and oversees transportation performance. Most Alaska oil goes to BP refineries in Cherry Point, WA, and Carson City, CA. The Alaska Tanker Company (ATC), based in Beaverton, OR, operates BP’s tankers. BP owns 25% of ATC, and as an owner/director, establishes Health Safety Security and the Environment (HSSE) performance criteria based on BP standards. BP tracks ATC performance monthly.
Of the eight tankers in ATC's BP-chartered fleet, three are double-hulled and another four have double bottoms. Two vessels are on long-term charter to ConocoPhillips.
If ExxonMobil diversted their marine department, why are they winning awards for their operation?
ExxonMobil's U.S. Shipping Company Receives Washington State Exceptional Compliance Award
IRVING, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 2, 2005--Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM) today announced that its U.S. marine transportation affiliate, SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., has been recognized by the Washington State Department of Ecology for excellence in marine safety and environmental stewardship. SeaRiver achieved this through meeting the state's voluntary Exceptional Compliance Program for Tank Vessels (Ecopro) and is the only company to attain full Ecopro status for a third consecutive renewal period since the program's inception in 1999.
You read it, it's now called Sea River.
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.