Comments by AKEngineer
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on April 11 at 5:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AGIA does a good job of articulating the States needs. The free market will sort out the details and a project will move forward based on rate of return and net present value.
Posted on April 11 at 3:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with DT on the getting married to Canada point - closed valves at borders don't put revenue in your pocket.
Posted on April 10 at 3:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AGIA - R.I.P?
http://alaska-gas-pipeline.blogspot.com/...
On BP, ConocoPhillips plan to build gas pipeline greeted with enthusiasm, questions
Posted on April 9 at 3:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
YES - Working together for an in State pipeline sounds like a great option. And YES - the gas demand of Fairbanks alone won't drive a project. And YES a short line to Valdez sounds cheaper than a long line to the Canadian Tar Sands.
Folks deserve more transparency - where's the side by side Net Positive Value and Rate of Return comparison of the in-state LNG option vs. the TransCanada option.
Posted on April 6 at 5:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Governor Palin has forged a political identity as the Anti-Big Oil candidate. It got her elected – Once. If AGIA fails, the Anti-Big Oil game won’t work a second time.
When the dust settles it sounds like Producers want fiscal certainty (a commitment by the state for gas tax rates) and the State wants a pipeline construction commitment.
Eyes on the Prize.
Posted on March 30 at 5:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Somehow the pipeline project seems be slipping completely out of control.
The AGIA was intended to open and transparent. The transparency and openness don’t seem to apply to discussions of future gas taxes.
The All Alaska LNG option got the squashed like a bug. I’m still not clear on why a short gas line to an Alaska LNG port is more expensive than a long gas line to the Alberta Tar Sand field.
The Canadians want up to 25% rate of return. Fairbanks is getting desperate for energy.
Lots of folks feeling aliened and shortchanged by the whole process. With the North Slope producers sidelined – who gets the credit for all this?
I’m taking a poll, check it out:
Posted on March 29 at 5:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Somehow the pipeline project seems be slipping completely out of control.
The AGIA was intended to open and transparent. The transparency and openness don’t seem to apply to discussions of future gas taxes.
The All Alaska LNG option got the squashed like a bug. I’m still not clear on why a short gas line to an Alaska LNG port is more expensive than a long gas line to the Alberta Tar Sand field.
The Canadians want up to 25% rate of return. Fairbanks is getting desperate for energy.
Lots of folks feeling aliened and shortchanged by the whole process. With the North Slope producers sidelined – who gets the credit for all this?
I’m taking a poll, check it out:
Posted on March 29 at 3:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is the TransCanada honeymoon starting to unravel? Will Palin export pipeline profits to Canada and cede control to a TransCanada?
One point to remember - Alaska gas is not needed to warm some kitchen in Vermont. It's needed to produce Canadian tar sand oil. The tar sand refineries and upgraders consume a lot of energy - so it should come as no surprise that TransCanada will supply those needs with Alaska gas.
Take the Poll http://alaska-gas-pipeline.blogspot.com/...
On Critics say TransCanada wants too much profit from gas line
Posted on March 23 at 6:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The numbers don't seem to crunch.
If a $2 Billion Coal-Gas project is too expensive to breathe life into Agrium, how is a $3 Billion gas line going to do any better?
Assume residential ratepayers pay $1.5 Billion over a 5-year payback period –
That’s $300 million per year per 100,000 households or about $3000/per year per household for gas.
Sounds like a hard sell – and what’s the cost of installing small bore residential gas lines and meters? That will add to the annual fuel bill of consumers.
I don’t mean to sound totally pessimistic – The bullet line is almost justifiable as a stand-alone project. The cost would come down if the bullet line branched off a mainline at or near Fairbanks.
Let’s hope it all comes together soon.
Thanks for the perspective Mr. Cole.
http://alaska-gas-pipeline.blogspot.com/...
On Natural gas line will slash Fairbanks fuel bills — a half-century ago
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on May 25 at 4:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Alaska Gas - Canadian Tar Sands connection is never discussed in the media. The planned tar sand projects needed the Alaska Gas. Do the math: http://alaska-gas-pipeline.blogspot.com/...
Maybe the TransCanada gas line should be the "Y-line" to an All American LNG line to Valdez.
On Natural gas to China? It could happen