Should Alaska Own More Of Its Oil Industry?

A timeline of Alaska gas efforts

Archive Update

Faithful readers know we are dedicated to building and maintaining the most thorough archive existing anywhere, documenting the history of Alaska and Northern Canadian natural gas monetization efforts.

Herb Butler's contribution today helps bring us to the current era.

However, we provide here for your reference, links to the long and more detailed history of Alaska and Canadian northern gas pipeline and LNG projects.  

-dh

We are indebted to Herb Butler and the Fairbanks News Miner for providing this Alaska gas project commentary and timeline.  -dh

1976: The U.S. Congress passed the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act in an effort to encourage the construction of a gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to the Lower 48.

1980: A Right-Of-Way license was issued by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission to the Alaskan Northwest Natural Gas Transportation Company. In 2008, that license was voluntarily withdrawn. There are many conflicting opinions why this effort failed to deliver fuel gas to a large U.S. market. The primary reason was the refusal of the oil field producers to provide marketable (high quality) natural gas from the Prudhoe Bay field.

1987: The Export Authority, created by the Alaska Legislature in 1967, is renamed the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority. The organization is given additional authorities especially financial powers and also the right to purchase businesses and property.

1999: The Alaska Gasline Port Authority was formed. AGPA is comprised of the three boroughs, Valdez, Fairbanks North Star and North Slope. The mission of this group is to develop a liquefied natural gas export system based in Valdez. The source of fuel gas is from the Prudhoe Bay oil field.

2003: The state of Alaska formed the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority, whose mission is to develop a natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and a spur line to Southcentral Alaska.

2004: The U.S. Congress passed the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act to resolve or clarify many issues attendant to the permitting of an interstate Alaska natural gas pipeline. ANGPA also provided an $18 billion loan guarantee and some tax relief.

2007: The state of Alaska passed the Alaska Gas Inducement Act. AGIA would provide a $500 million matching contribution to the construction of a gas line from Prudhoe Bay through Fairbanks, Delta Junction, Tok Junction and into Canada following the Alaska Highway. Notice that the matching contribution seems to be the only inducement in this vehicle.

2008: TransCanada, a gas pipeline company, was awarded the only AGIA license. TransCanada states their pipeline would not be completed until 2018. Denali Pipeline was created by British Petroleum and Conoco in competition with TransCanada for the AGIA license and continued on with their project after TransCanada was selected by AGIA.

2009: The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation is created by the Legislature to advance the plans for Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline, another plan with no forward momentum.   

2011: Denali Pipeline discontinues their pipeline project.

2014: TransCanada terminates the AGIA license but expresses an interest in building a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Southcentral Alaska (Nikiski) because of the work already accomplished under the AGIA plan. It is this position that Gov. Bill Walker wants to purchase for $100 million. A definitive plan or project does not exist to deliver high-quality natural gas to the LNG port in Nikiski. The Alaska LNG Project is added to AGDC’s responsibilities.

The Cook Inlet natural gas supply is dwindling at a continuous rate. Fairbanks Natural Gas buys its gas at Point Mackenzie in the Matanuska Valley from Enstar. FNG has had to pass on increasing prices to the local customers in Fairbanks. FNG is unable to expand its distribution in Fairbanks because of Enstar pricing and allocation. The expected shutdown of Cook Inlet natural gas sources will happen by 2020 unless a new gas field is found. At this point, there is no alternative source other than Prudhoe Bay.

FNG is trying its best to acquire quality natural gas in Prudhoe Bay, to no avail. The Prudhoe Bay gas is of extremely low quality because it contains 12 percent carbon dioxide (CO2) and approximately 76 percent methane. FNG cannot produce LNG (frozen methane) at Prudhoe Bay without extracting all of the CO2. This is because CO2 freezes much sooner than methane and therefore causes all kinds of freezing cycle stoppages. FNG and/or their producer must build an extraction system before a freezing system. Then there is the disposal issue. What do you do with all the CO2 that is extracted? FNG was purchased by AIDEA in 2015. AIDEA is spending a large amount of money to build gas storage and distribution systems in North Pole and Fairbanks without a guaranteed source of natural gas.  

This is good news to the refineries and the liquid fuel distributors. They have some positive future expectations. We consumers in Alaska are facing a dilemma though. We must contend with a status quo situation well into the next years and maybe even longer. Large fuel oil bills will become even larger in size there is no doubt about that. The natural gas users are facing a grim future. They must think of reverting back to liquid fuel.

Two facades are in place in Alaska.

1. AIDEA has spent a large amount of money on a natural gas supply system in the Fairbanks and North Pole area without any guaranteed source.

2. Gov. Walker wants to pay TransCanada pipeline $100 million dollars for their interest in a pipeline project that does not exist. The Alaska LNG Project is only a plan, just like all the other plans before it. A schedule and budget does not exist. The media has reported proposed costs as high as $65 billion. 

Herb Butler is a retired oilfield and refinery engineer who spent decades working in the oil and gas industry in Alaska. He lives in Fairbanks.

More about 

More about 

  • ARTICLE: Alaska governor plans to call for company buy-out in gas project
  • ARTICLE: Companies file export application for Alaska LNG
  • ARTICLE: Itemized work on Alaska gas line confidential
  • ARTICLE: Feds: No more false starts on Alaska gas pipeline    
  •  

    Today, Facebook friends were mulling over the possible benefits of government ownership of Alaskan energy projects. Norway was sited, as it often is these days, as a place where government ownership has produced wonderful results. In fact, it seems that Alaska's governor, based on recent statements, may well be considering using Norway as an example of how Alaska should approach the monetization of its oil and gas resources.

    We wrote the following piece today:

    "Are Norway and Alaska Identical Twins, or Are They Apples and Oranges?"

    "Critical difference:

    "Norway is a sovereign country that, along with its ownership of companies, can and does eliminate costly appeals and delays by activists.

    "Alaska is a quasi sovereign state whose energy activities are subject to federal regulatory delays and federally permitted (if not encouraged) due process, sue and settle tactics and "endless" judicial challenges.

    "Yes, Norway can balance some of the inefficiency of government ownership by sympathetic government regulation.

    "Socializing Alaskan industry produces all of the dangers of crony capitalism and all of the risks of hostile federal government regulation, augmented by costly and in many cases, frivolous social, political and legal activism.

    "Norway and Alaska share some things in common, including a northern climate, majestic landscapes and bountiful natural resources.

    "That does not mean this state and that country are alike in every way.

    "Once again, we are cautioned about comparing apples and oranges.

    "Right?"

  •