Miss a day
Miss a lot

Northern Gas Pipelines is your public service 1-stop-shop for Alaska and Canadian Arctic energy commentary, news, history, projects and people. It is informal and rich with new information, updated daily. Here is the most timely and complete Arctic gas pipeline and northern energy archive available anywhere—used by media, academia, government and industry officials throughout the world. Northern Gas Pipelines may be the oldest Alaska blog; we invite readers to suggest others existing before 2001.

 

4-18-12

 

We remind fellow citizens to not underestimate the internal threat to our American freedoms.  We remind ourselves to not be complacent, thinking "It could never happen here".   -dh
 
 Harbour and Hofmeister to Address Texas Alliance of Energy Producers Next Week
 
TransCanada’s Summer 2012 Western Canada Gas Supply Update is out… Read More…
___________________________
CBC North.  The federal government is reducing the number of departments and agencies that can do environmental reviews from 40 to just three to speed up approvals for projects that will bolster Canada's economy, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said today.
Next week, Former Shell President John Hofmeister (Photo-below) will be delivering the luncheon keynote speech to the annual meeting of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, preceded by your author's breakfast speech.  Here is the brochure.  For any of our readers who plan on attending, please email me so that I can be looking for you.
 
 

 

 Gas Pipelines back in the news, but was it ever not so?  

If we had begun exploring in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2002, its oil and gas (and jobs and revenue) would be flowing now.

ARE ALASKANS MISINTERPRETING ALASKA'S CONSTITUTION?

Dave Harbour, Alaska Business Monthly

 

 

 

 

April Alaska Business Monthly Commentary

by

Dave Harbour

Maybe Alaska is turning into a high oil and gas taxing, entitlement state because that is what Alaskans want.  Is it really?  Let’s explore what we really want -- and what the Constitution says --  as the Alaska Legislature journeys toward adjournment and makes many life-changing decisions. 

 Gov. Sean Parnell re: Special Session


Chenault opposes rewrite of gas pipeline bill - Coshocton Tribune
And he said it reinserts politics into efforts to bring a gas line to fruition. Earlier this week, Gov. Sean Parnell called on the Senate to pass some version of the bill, saying legislative inaction would set back efforts to try to bring about a gas ...
See all stories on this topic »

 Prospects for small gas line alive but fading - Anchorage Daily News
Gov. Sean Parnell has said that oil taxes would be grounds for calling the Legislature back into session -- but only if a measure had passed the Senate and didn't have enough time to get through the House. The gas line bill would be another cause.
See all stories on this topic »

Gov. Sean Parnell Sets Conditions for Special Session - Local News ...
Sean Parnell has laid down the conditions that would cause him to call a ... Second, Parnell wants passage of a bill to build an in-state natural gas pipeline from ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/.../gov-sean-parnell-sets-conditions-spec...


 Today's Links from Alaska Gas Pipeline Office of the Federal Coordinator:

FERC approves Cheniere Energy LNG export project

Banks agree to $4 billion in financing for Cheniere LNG export plant

LNG may be an option for Hawaii

Jones Act exemption would help get LNG to Hawaii

Mitsubishi, Mitsui join with Sempra on Gulf Coast LNG export project

Producers look for new demand to soak up natural gas glut

Obama sets up group to coordinate federal oversight of shale gas

Exxon CEO says fracking concerns are manageable

Frito-Lay joins conversion to natural gas vehicles

Chevron signs up another Asia utility for Australia LNG project

Pakistan in talks with Algeria for lower-cost LNG

Sakhalin-2 shipped additional LNG cargoes last year

Indonesia continues negotiating with China to raise LNG sales price

Reversed oil pipeline could start serving Gulf Coast in May 

America's Lost Energy Decade

If we had begun exploring in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2002, its oil and gas (and jobs and revenue) would be flowing now.

By LISA MURKOWSKI

Ten years ago this week, the U.S. Senate debated whether to open a small section of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and natural gas production. Under the terms of the ANWR amendment, a maximum of 2,000 acres in the nonwilderness portion of the refuge (less than 0.01% of the whole) would have been opened to surface development. But the amendment was defeated, and we are paying the price today.

In an energy-strategy speech Tuesday, President Obama once again listed the importance of producing "more oil and gas here at home." Whether that happens depends on what the president and other policy makers have learned since the ANWR debate a decade ago.

Despite Alaska's stellar record of balancing energy production with environmental protection, opponents threw out a litany of excuses to oppose development in ANWR, none tethered to reason or reality. One senator urged her colleagues to think of the local wildlife, although wildlife has thrived on nearby state lands with oil and gas production. Another declared that there aren't enough pristine areas left in the world, ignoring the fact that the federal government alone has designated nearly 110 million acres in the U.S. as wilderness.

Some chose to claim that America was running out of oil, as if that would be a compelling reason to ignore our largest untapped field. Others alleged that the proposed drilling area only holds a six-month supply of oil—both understating the size of the resource and strangely believing it would somehow be the sole source of oil for our entire country over that period.

But the most blatant excuse is one that officially expires this week. Because oil might take up to 10 years to reach market, we were told that the nonwilderness portion of ANWR could not be part of the solution to our energy challenges. Nearly every senator who spoke against the amendment in 2002 listed this as a factor in his or her decision.

Now, 10 years later, it is plain to see that the argument was not just wrong, but backward. Instead of being a reason to oppose development in ANWR, the time it takes to develop the resource should be treated as a reason to approve it as quickly as possible.

Consider what would be different today had the Senate agreed to open those 2,000 acres a decade ago. If production were coming online right now as expected, it would be providing our nation with a number of much-needed benefits—including a lot more oil.

Oil prices would be restrained, if not reduced, as Alaskan crude made up for both actual and threatened losses around the world. Billions of dollars in new revenues would be generated for the U.S. Treasury, reducing the deficit and providing us with a means to invest in new energy technologies.

Oil imports would be reduced, keeping dollars within our economy to promote growth here at home. Thousands of ANWR-related, well-paying new jobs would be created at zero cost to taxpayers. And a looming national catastrophe—the shutdown for economic reasons of the increasingly empty trans-Alaska pipeline—would be averted.

It's a shame that we are forced to forgo these benefits at a time when all are desperately needed. But this is not just a missed opportunity; it's a cautionary tale. The shortsighted decision made 10 years ago is relevant to the current debate on energy policy.

Today, we again find ourselves at a moment when federal policy makers could dramatically increase domestic oil and gas production. But instead of embracing that possibility, many of the same members of Congress are making the same antisupply arguments. What we should realize is that these are empty excuses that hurt our nation's future prosperity.

It's time to revisit whether ANWR itself should be opened to development. Opening ANWR is not a silver bullet that will unilaterally or immediately solve our energy challenges. To demand that sets an impossibly high bar that no resource or regulation can ever reach. Instead we should see ANWR for what it can provide in terms of energy, jobs, revenue and security.

I'm particularly hopeful that President Obama will lead the way by living up to his recent promise to allow oil production "everywhere we can." If that's not just election-year rhetoric, this tiny patch of tundra in northeast Alaska would be a perfect place to start.

Ms. Murkowski is a Republican senator from Alaska.

A version of this article appeared April 18, 2012, on page A17 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: America's Lost Energy Decade. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

    
Industry Luncheon Speaker:  John Hofmeister,  Former President, Shell Oil Company

John Hofmeister, Dave Harbour, OCS, Texas Energy Allianceohn Hofmeister, the former President of Shell Oil Company, delivers straight talk about the oil and gas industry. Since retiring in 2008, Hofmeister has been working for a better understanding of the oil business by the public and vice versa. He has written a book, “Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an energy insider.” He organized the Citizens for Affordable Energy that promotes sound U.S. energy security solutions for the nation. He travels around the country talking about energy policy, economy and national security. He will speak at noon on April 25.
 
Membership Breakfast Speaker:
Dave Harbour, Texas Energy Alliance, Wichita SpringsDave Harbour, Commissioner Emeritus, Author, Regulator, Lobbyist
Membership Breakfast Featured Speaker: Dave Harbour, of Anchorage, Alaska, former Chairman Alaska Regulatory Commission, and commissioner Emeritus of the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners and Publisher of Northern Gas Pipelines, will discuss the vital role that Texas and Alaska plays in the future of the United States becoming energy independent. The breakfast begins at 7:30 am on April 25, 201

 

Categories: