• 5 minutes Rage Without Proof: Maduro Accuses U.S. Official Of Plotting Venezuela Invasion
  • 11 minutes IEA Sees Global Oil Supply Tightening More Quickly In 2019
  • 14 minutes Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes -- Is America Next?
  • 15 mins Alberta govt to construct another WCS processing refinery
  • 9 hours Let's Just Block the Sun, Shall We?
  • 22 hours U.S. Senate Advances Resolution To End Military Support For Saudis In Yemen
  • 23 hours Waste-to-Energy Chugging Along
  • 1 day What will the future hold for nations dependent on high oil prices.
  • 4 hours What Can Bring Oil Down to $20?
  • 1 day Venezuela continues to sink in misery
  • 1 day UK Power and loss of power stations
  • 1 day Contradictory: Euro Zone Takes Step To Deeper Integration, Key Issues Unresolved
  • 22 hours Regular Gas dropped to $2.21 per gallon today
  • 2 days No, The U.S. Is Not A Net Exporter Of Crude Oil
  • 2 days EPA To Roll Back Carbon Rule On New Coal Plants
  • 17 hours Sleeping Hydrocarbon Giant
  • 18 hours Sane Take on the Russia-Ukraine Case

Global Energy Advisory – 25th April 2014

Alaska Endorses Gas Pipeline Plans

Last weekend, the Alaska Legislature approved gas pipeline plans to spend some US$100 million in the short-term to join four energy companies to build infrastructure to transport North Slope gas along an 800-mile pipeline to an LNG export plant. Both the House and the Senate have approved the plan, which has now been sent back to Governor Sean Parnell to sign off on. This is Parnell’s plan to begin with, so signing off is a foregone conclusion. Under the deal the State of Alaska will collect future taxes from the pipeline in the form of a share of the natural cash, rather than cash. Effectively, this means the state will be partnering with pipeline giant TransCanada and oil and gas companies (Exxon Mobil, BP, Conoco Phillips).

Opponents of the deal argue that Alaska will make unacceptably low revenues on this project, while proponents say it’s a fair deal and the only way to start getting the gas out of the ground and to the market. Proponents are talking about the potential for around US$4 billion in revenues annually. However, this assumes that project costs aren’t high and gas prices aren’t low, and opponents point out that actual state revenues could end up being 10% of this.

The project’s goal is to market 35 trillion cubic feet of North Slope gas through the 800-mile pipeline connecting to an LNG export facility. The project will cost an estimated $45 billion to $65 billion for the pipeline…

To read the full article

Please sign up and become a premium OilPrice.com member to gain access to read the full article.

RegisterLogin

Trending Discussions




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News