Gas line authority renews its pitch {Alaska LNG}

Anchorage Daily News ^ | August 26, 2006 | AP

[thackney]

The Gasline Port Authority is renewing its pitch for an all-Alaska gas line while urging lawmakers to stop work on Gov. Frank Murkowski's natural gas pipeline proposal.

Buoyed by Sarah Palin's win Tuesday in the Republican primary, representatives from the group addressed lawmakers Thursday during a Senate committee meeting in Fairbanks.

Port authority chairman and Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Jim Whitaker urged members of the Senate Special Committee on Natural Gas Development and other lawmakers to stop work on Murkowski's proposal.

"We think it would be a mistake to continue with a contract that has some basic flaws," he said.

While port authority officials said Palin's victory over Murkowski would not change how they approached their project, they expressed optimism at the changing of the guard in Juneau.

"We have good reason to be optimistic that we will have a good working relationship with the next administration," said project manager Bill Walker.

An improved relationship could help both in acquiring gas from the oil companies and attracting partners to the project, he said.

"It sends a message to potential participants," Walker said.

Murkowski has described the port authority proposal as uneconomic and unfeasible. However, Palin has called an "all-Alaska" line her preferred line.

Former Gov. Tony Knowles, the Democratic candidate for governor, has said the state should consider all viable proposals.

Murkowski, whose term ends in December, is pushing a proposal to build a pipeline to the Lower 48 with BP, Conoco Phillips and Exxon Mobil. He said Monday that he would call lawmakers back to Juneau in September to work on the contract.

While lawmakers largely turned down Whitaker's plea to stop work on the administration's proposal, some took a tougher stance.

[thackney]

The truth about LNG {Alaska}
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690778/posts

The Alaska Gasline Port Authority is committed to its option -- a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, where an expensive plant would liquefy the gas for shipment aboard tankers to West Coast ports. The port authority is so devoted to its cause that it has taken leave of the truth in trying to sell it to the public. In doing so, it has managed to convince far too many Alaskans that the LNG project is an immediate, legitimate option to a North Slope line to mid-America.

The risk is that Alaskans will tell the producers to take a hike while expecting that the port authority can build its project. Negotiating business deals on bad information is dangerous.

But bad information is what comes out from the port authority, a seven-year-old effort led by the City of Valdez and Fairbanks North Star Borough. Recent port authority ads say its successes include "obtaining congressional approval for $18 billion in federal loan guarantees." That's false. Federal legislation in 2004 gives the port authority -- and any other eligible applicant -- merely the right to apply for federal loan guarantees. There is no guarantee that the port authority would get the guarantee.

[1rudeboy]

Public/private partnership! [runs screaming for the door]

[Western Phil]

"a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, where an expensive plant would liquefy the gas for shipment aboard tankers to West Coast ports."

Are there willing and able customers to receive the gas in the West Coast ports? My guess is that nobody wants it in their back yard.

[hosepipe]

Why an oil pipeline to Valdez but not a LNG pipeline(same route)?.. on the same "but expanded" superstructure.. and infrastructure?.. There are already "roads" along most if not all the pipeline for maintenance.. Since most of Alaska has zero roads because of federal gov't restrictions.. expanding the oil pipeline to include natural gas should be easy/easier..

Building train tracks alongside the pipeline (along most of it) couldn't hurt either.. What about the mountains?.. Build tunnels them like in Whittier.. Make Alaska a right to work State to make Unions more competitive.. The way they are not in non right to work States.. Should lessen the cost it all by about 1000%...

[thackney]

Are there willing and able customers to receive the gas in the West Coast ports? My guess is that nobody wants it in their back yard.

You are guessing correctly. All of the proposed facilities are under protest.

[thackney]

Why an oil pipeline to Valdez but not a LNG pipeline

Because you do not have to consume large amounts of oil to freeze it then reheat it. LNG is a costly way to transport gas. That will make money for those that own the LNG facility and cost money to those who own and receive royalty payments for the gas.

Also the market is not big enough to import all that gas. If you go to the Port Authorities project description you will see it has changed. It now says 1.2 BCFD to Valdez and later a pipeline through Canada will be built for 3 BCFD. An LNG prioritized project will delay the payments to Alaska and consume more of our gas in transportation costs. The highway route will deliver more gas at a greater revenue stream for Alaska.

There are already "roads" along most if not all the pipeline for maintenance

The highway route will follow the oil pipeline to Delta Junction then follow the highway into Alberta. From there it will feed existing gas pipelines than need to be expanded and/or build a new pipeline to the big gas market in Chicago.

[Chewbacca]

Gas line will never be built.
There is a shortage of nickle and molybdinum to manufacture the pipe needed.

[thackney]

The material can be bought, but the prices will be high.

[Chewbacca]

Last i read there was only 870 tons of nickel for sale, which equated to 6-hours of world demand.

At $30,000/ton for nickel all you would need would be $30,000,000 to corner the nickel market.

[RightWhale]

It's going to Canada, not the West Coast.

[thackney]

If the legislature would sign today, the pipe would not need to be delivered for 7 years. There is time to proceed and begin working on the materials needed.

[thackney]

Last i read there was only 870 tons of nickel for sale, which equated to 6-hours of world demand.

Market Analysis: Nickel - July 2006

Strong demand and a myriad of supply concerns continue to support prices and erode the limited LME stockpile currently down close to 4,100 tonnes.

[Chewbacca]

On Friday (18 Aug 06) LME-monitored nickel stocks rose 36 tonnes to 6,156, but the amount of nickel available to the market on uncancelled warrants dropped to 870 tonnes or six hours of world consumption, from 1,248 tonnes on Thursday.

http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-08-18T104312Z_01_BAN838577_RTRIDST_0_OZABS-MARKETS-METALS-20060818.XML

[thackney]

Uncancelled warrants are not the same as stocks. Purchased stocks can still be resold to a higher bidder. How does this compare to historical levels?

[thackney]

At $30,000/ton for nickel all you would need would be $30,000,000 to corner the nickel market.

I forgot to ask before. In an market this tight with such elevated prices, do you believe that there are no other speculators buying stocks and futures? Some of the longer term futures might even be already purchased by those planning on the gas pipeline.