|
|
|
Northern Gas Pipelines, (Alaska Gas Pipeline, Denali - The Alaska Gas Pipeline, Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline, Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, Northern Route Gas Pipeline, Arctic Gas, LNG, GTL) is your public service, objective, unbiased 1-stop-shop for Arctic gas pipeline projects and people, informal and rich with new information, updated 30 times weekly and best Northern Oil & Gas Industry Links on the Internet. Find AAGPC, AAGSC, ANGTL, ANNGTC, ANGDA, ANS, APG, APWG, ANGTA, ANGTS, AGPPT, ANWR, ARC, CARC, CAGPL, CAGSL, FPC, FERC, GTL, IAEE, LNG, NEB, NPA, TAGS, TAPS, NARUC, IOGCC, CONSUMER ENERGY ALLIANCE, AOGA,AOGCC, RCA and more... 2009 LINKS: FERC Reports to Congress, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7....; USGS Arctic Gas Estimates; MMS hearings: RDC, Our NGP, AJOC, DH, ADN, KTUU; Enstar Bullet Line: Map and News Links; ANGDA; Alaska Energy Forum; Prosperity Alaska 2008 LINKS:
Shell Alaska OCS Study;
WASHINGTON: Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act; History of H.R. 4; DOE Energy Bill Position, 6-02; Daschle-Bingaman Energy Bill (Alaska, Sec. 1236 & tax credit, Sec. 2503 & H.R. 4 Conferees), Tax Credit; See amendments, "Energy Policy Act of 2002"; "Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2001 (Draft)" & Background Paper, 8-9-01;Alaska Legislature Joint Committee position; Governor's position; Governor's 10-Point Plan; Anadarko Analysis; U.S. Senate Energy Committee Testimony, 10-2-01 - text version; U.S. Senate Energy Committee Testimony, 9-14-00; Report on the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1971, prepared by staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1-18-01 ALASKA: 1-23-03, Governor Frank Murkowski's State of the State Speech; 2002 DRAFT Recommendations to 2003 Legislature; '02 Alaska Legislation; Alaska Highway Natural Gas Pipeline Policy Council; Joint Legislative Gas Pipeline Committee; 9-01 Alaska Models: Canadian Routes, LNG, GTL; HR 4 Story; Cook Inlet Supply-Demand Report: AEDC; Commonwealth North Investigation & Our Article; Report: Backbone; Legislature Contacts; State Gas Pipeline Financing Study; 5-02 Alaska Producer Update; Kenai: "Oil & Gas Industry Issues and Activities Report, 11-02"; Alaska Oil & Gas Tax Structure; 2-27-02 Royalty Sale Background; Alaska Gas Pipeline Office opens, 7-01, and closes, 5-02; Betty Galbraith's 1997-1998 Chronology. Our copy. CANADA: 1-10-03, "Arctic Gas Pipeline Construction Impacts On Northern Transp."-Transport Canada-PROLOG Canada Inc.-The Van Horne Institute;Hill Times Reports, 8-30-02; 9-30-02, Cons. Info. Requirements; CBC Archives, Berger Commission; GNWT Economic Impact Study, 5-13-02; GNWT-Purvin & Gertz Study, 5-8-02; Alberta-Alaska MOU 6-02; Draft Pan- Northern Protocol for Oil and Gas Development; Yukon Government Economic Effects: 4-02 & PPT; Gas Pipeline Cooperation Plan Draft & Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board; Mackenzie Valley Pipeline MOU Draft, 6-01; FirstEnergy Analysis: 10-19-01; Integrated Delta Studies; National Post on Mackenzie Pipeline, 1-02;Northern Pipeline Act; Haida Nation v. British Columbia; Indian Claims Commission; Skeena Cellulose decision -- aboriginal consultations required, 12-02; Misc. Pipeline Studies '02 COMPANIES: Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team Newsletter, 7-27-01; APG Newsletter: 5-02, 7-02 & 9-02; ArctiGas NEB PIP Filing Background; NRGPC Newsletter: Fall-02; 4-02 ArctiGas Reduces Field Work; BP's Natural Gas Page; Enbridge Perspective; Foothills Perspective; Williams Perspective; YPC Perspective, 7-02 MEDIA REFERENCE: Alaska Journal of Commerce; Alaska Inc. Magazine; Anchorage Daily News; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Fairbanks Daily News Miner, Juneau Empire; Northern News Services; Oil & Gas Reporter; Petroleum News Alaska; Whitehorse Star, etc. EXTENDED CONFERENCE NEWS: Alaska Support Industry Alliance, Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Institute, Insight Information, Inuvik Petroleum Shows, International Association of Energy Economists, Resource Development Council for Alaska, Ziff Energy Group
|
Northern Gas Pipelines: Extended news items, 2001 2002 Extended News: Please Choose Event on Left Button Menu Work is attributed with links to source organization, where possible, even when source document cannot be retrieved. Items immediately removed/edited upon request of source. Formatting sometimes results in elimination of paragraph spacing.
12-24-01: Voice of the Times, by William J. Tobin
(Photo-l, with Representative Bob Roses, 6-07; and Bill Tobin (r)
discussing and putting a personal note into Dave Harbour's copy of
Evangeline Atwood's book about Anchorage, March 2008):
Our Tree This Aglow With Lights Burning Brightly For Young Americans Standing In Harm's Way In The Nation's Fight Against The Evil Of Terrorism. This Is The 38th Time That Holiday From These Columns To Faithful Readers Who Have Been Kind Enough To Turn This Way Every Week For Bits Of Trivia, Awful Puns, And A Travel Bit Or Two. And As Is Our Tradition, We Once Again Trim Our Tree With The Great Prayer Of St. Francis Of Assisi, With A Message Of Faith And To Guide Us In The Days Ahead. Lord, Make Me An Instrument Of Your Peace. Where There Is Hatred, Let Me Sow Love; Where There Is Injury, Pardon; Where There Is Doubt, Faith; Where There Is Despair, Hope; Where There Is Darkness, Light; And Where There Is Sadness, Joy. O Divine Master, Grant That I May Not So Much Seek To Be Consoled As To Console; To Be Understood As To Understand; To Be Loved As To Love; For It Is In Giving That We Receive; It Is In Pardoning That We Are Pardoned, And It Is In Dying That We Are Born To Eternal Life. -- William J. Tobin, a great friend.
11-18-01: SUNDAY SPECIAL, Phillips and Conoco Merge Into Third Largest U.S. Integrated Energy Company: (Commentary: In July 2001, Conoco acquired Gulf Canada Resources Limited. Houston, Texas and Bartlesville, Oklahoma (Nov. 18, 2001, from official releases) - Conoco Inc. (NYSE:COC, motto "Think Big, Move Fast") and Phillips Petroleum Company (NYSE:P, motto "The Performance Company") today announced that their boards of directors have unanimously approved a merger of equals, and that the companies have signed a definitive merger agreement. The new company, which will be named
ConocoPhillips will have: ConocoPhillips breaking news links: Anchorage Daily News, Ben Spiess; National Post, Danny Boyd; Financial Times, Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson & Sheila McNulty; Globe & Mail (Reuters), Jeffrey Goldfarb & Andrew Kelly; New York Times, Neela Banerjee & Andrew Ross Sorkin; Houston Chronicle, Nelson Antosh; Canoe Money; Oil & Gas Journal. (This is a good time to repeat what regular readers know: we extend an open invitation for anyone to supply additions or corrections to all news/editorial/reference materials shown on this public service website. -dh) 10-25-01: Mayor's Alliance Presentation: Are We Partners in Alaska’s Development, or Not? Comments by Mayor George N. Ahmaogak, Sr. to the Alaska Support Industry Alliance Thursday, October 25 7:00 am Petroleum Club of Anchorage I appreciate this opportunity to visit with you today, because we need to talk. Those of you who live in urban Alaska, do business in the oil industry, and look forward to the benefits of ANWR development and a gas pipeline..... And those of us who live in rural Alaska on the North Slope, and depend on the oil field tax base as our only source of economic support.... We need to talk. We’re getting some really mixed messages out of urban Alaska these days. On one hand, we’re expected to constantly play a high-profile role as the local North Slope residents and Alaska Natives who support ANWR and gasline development. We’re told that we’re an important part of the team. We help to fund the overall ANWR program and Arctic Power — we’ve contributed several hundred thousand dollars to the effort this year alone. We have a more active presence in D.C. than any other municipality or civic organization in the state. Between the North Slope Borough, the City of Kaktovik, and ASRC, we have sent local people to Washington to lobby members of Congress nearly every week. We have people from across the Slope traveling to D.C. on a rotating basis, pounding on doors up on the Hill. Just ask Senator Murkowski or Jerry Hood if we’re critical in the effort to get votes for ANWR. Ask them who makes the biggest difference in responding to the environmental and Gwich’in arguments. It’s the people of the North Slope. We ARE your partners in resource development. We believe ANWR should be explored — carefully. We believe the caribou can be protected at the same time as the oil is taken to market. We ARE dues-paying members of the diverse alliance of Alaskans who are working together to shape the future of resource development. It is a group that draws much of its strength from its diversity, and we are a very important expression of that diversity. At least, that’s what you folks keep telling us. If it’s not true, please tell me. Just tell us if you don’t think we make a difference in the ANWR battle in D.C. Because if we don’t make a difference, we might as well cut off our support and send some mixed messages ourselves. That’s not what we want to do, and I don’t think it’s what you want us to do. So why are you sending such mixed messages our way? I can tell what you’re thinking. You’re asking yourselves, “What the heck is he talking about? What is all this stuff about mixed messages?” I’m glad you asked. Maybe you haven’t heard what some of your Anchorage and Fairbanks legislators are doing to us in your name. I hope you haven’t heard, otherwise you ARE sending mixed messages to your partners up north. The North Slope Borough is a political subdivision of the state, and we take a lot of our cues from politicians higher up the food chain. Over the years, we’ve had a few political battles in the Legislature. But those conflicts were always issue-oriented, and always debated in an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect. That’s the way a diverse state is supposed to handle its policy disagreements. In the past two or three years, we’ve begun to see a very different attitude coming from a handful of legislators in Juneau. Maybe this attitude has always been there as an undercurrent, but now these legislators who want to poison the well are in leadership positions. Now they’re sponsoring bills to cut the legs out from under the North Slope Borough. They have identified us as a target, an enemy, and they’re not afraid to say so. This is not about policy. It’s target practice, and we’re the target. You may think I’m imagining all this. Well, don’t take my word for it. Ask some of the more level-headed legislators down there — Republican or Democrat. They’ll tell you this handful of senators from Anchorage and Fairbanks are gunning for the North Slope Borough in any way they can. It’s even causing some problems in their own majority caucus, because the moderates see it for what it is. It’s a legislative paintball attack. Partners in Alaska’s energy future don’t just stand by when things like this happen. They join together to defeat the people who want to divide us. Let me describe the problem in a different way. How would you like it if a legislator from Barrow who has never been a friend of Anchorage sponsored a bill that takes away Anchorage’s ability to sell municipal bonds for road improvements, school construction, health facilities, or any other community infrastructure? You’d probably say, “He can’t do that! Bonding is a local issue. It’s for municipal governments and local voters to decide whether or not they sell bonds to improve their communities.” Sorry. This senator from Barrow has sponsored a bill to take away that local control, take away the authority of voters to decide on local spending issues. He doesn’t care about other cities or towns — Anchorage is the one he wants to get — so he’s designed a bill that would only affect Anchorage. Nobody else is affected by it. How do you like it so far? Does this idea sound a little unfair to you? I know everyone here is a good citizen and only wants to think the best about all legislators. Maybe you’re wondering if this senator has some good reason that I haven’t told you about. He could be responding to an emergency. Maybe Anchorage is about to default on its debt payments, or it has no long-term plan for retiring the debt. If you ask this legislator, his response is, “Anchorage bonds too much.” Is he a financial expert? Not even close. Well, let’s ask some financial experts. What do the bond rating agencies say about this? It’s their business to know whether cities and towns are bonding responsibly. As it turns out, the bond rating agencies give Anchorage a perfectly good grade. Not as high as some municipalities, but still an A. Clearly, Anchorage uses its bonding authority legitimately and responsibly. It’s even paid off some of its debt ahead of schedule. Our imaginary senator from Barrow doesn’t care about this. He’s a powerful senator, so he makes sure the bill only gets sent to one committee in the Senate — the Finance Committee, which he chairs. He never holds an announced hearing, and never warns officials in Anchorage when the bill will be discussed. Instead, he waits until the end of the session when advanced notice is not required. He slips the bill out of his committee and arranges for it to come to the Senate floor on the last night of the session. After less than an hour of debate, it’s brought to a vote. He has already leaned on other senators to go along with him. The bill passes the Senate, 11-9. Remember — this bill is not the result of serious questions about Anchorage’s financial soundness or its management practices. There is no legitimate concern driving this attempt to steal bonding authority from the voters of Anchorage. This senator just doesn’t like Anchorage. Anchorage gets too much — we all know that — so he’s going to fix it. His bill is set up to siphon away $320 million of local money over the next ten years. It will not only prevent any new public construction projects, it will make it nearly impossible to repair and maintain existing infrastructure. Does this story sound a little far-fetched? Well it is.....unless you turn that Barow legislator into Senator Dave Donley from Anchorage and make it the North Slope Borough that’s about to be robbed. Then it’s not fiction — it’s the story of the 2001 legislative session. Are you beginning to understand why we think there’s an urban/rural divide? It’s because of people like Senator Dave Donley, who is co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee. And Fairbanks Senators Gary Wilken and Pete Kelly, who are also on the Finance Committee. You know as well as I do — if the Legislature ever tried to strip the legitimate authority of your local government and your voters when there was no emergency in sight, we’d be reading about it every day in the papers. There would be weeks of public hearings and committee debate. The business community would be right in there with Mayor Wuerch, the Assembly, community councils, the Girl Scouts, and everybody else. That piece of legislation would be so dead it would make a black hole in the legislative history books. And you know what? That’s the right way to fix it. It’s the right way to treat a bill called SB 186, which wants to do to the North Slope Borough exactly what I have just described to you. So let’s ask that question again: Are we working on the future of this state together, or not? When you look at it from our perspective — which is something partners need to do — things don’t look so chummy. All the back-slapping and brotherhood and cheering for ANWR and gas development is fine, but are we really in this together? Or are we only in it together when it’s good for you? I wish I could say that SB 186 is just an exception, a mistake that slipped through the legislative cracks. Well, that bill goes to the House of Representatives next year, and if it slips through the cracks again, the North Slope Borough and its residents will be in serious financial trouble. Also, SB 186 was not the only bill of its kind this year, or last year, or the year before. It seems like every year there is a major education funding bill proposing to strip the North Slope Borough of all educational support by the State of Alaska. So what if it’s the state’s constitutional responsibility to educate ALL its children. One of these bills even tried to have the North Slope Borough pay for educating kids in other parts of the state. You can call it just another goofy bill that won’t ever go anywhere, but I’ll tell you where it goes. It leads right where they want it to lead — to a climate in the Legislature that makes it okay to bash the North Slope Borough. It turns us into fair game when the Legislature is looking for ways to plug a hole in its budget. It makes our local tax base into a revenue source for the State. Would that be okay with you if they were doing it to Anchorage? There IS an urban/rural split, partners, and you can do something about it. In fact, you have to do something about it if this partnership is going to hold. This climate of punishment in the Legislature has got to stop. We’re doing our best to stop it, but we need your help. Like I said, these bills just try to make less drastic legislation look okay by comparison. They make it seem almost friendly to change the North Slope Borough’s property taxing authority that has been in place for 28 years. Our property tax method is the result of a compromise that was struck at the time our borough was formed. It was legitimate then, and it’s legitimate now. But some of your legislators are bound and determined — 28 years later — to whittle away at it and suck away our tax revenues to urban Alaska. I’m sorry. A deal’s a deal. It’s like a treaty to us, and if your legislators want to back out after all these years.....then all bets are off, and maybe we’re not in this together, partners. If we lose our ability to bond or our local taxing structure is compromised, where’s the incentive for us to take a leading role in the energy future of Alaska? When you have asked us to put a Native face on the effort to open ANWR or build a gasline down the highway, we’ve always been there. That’s not just because we’re nice people. We have a financial incentive, and if people who act in your name start taking that away from us, you can be sure we’ll give it a second look. We know how to use a monkey wrench as well as Senator Donley does. As long as he thinks he can play that game without any consequences from you folks, he’ll keep doing it. I’d hate to have you learn the hard way that we’ve got some cards, too. For example, we’ve taken a look at our records, and we’ve made some interesting discoveries. Did you know that in the year 2000 the North Slope Borough spent $139 million dollars in Anchorage? The really interesting part is that a lot of that spending occurs right in Senator Donley’s district, where some of you probably have businesses. We also found out the borough spent $13 million dollars in Fairbanks that year. We’re planning to take our message up there to the business constituents of Senator Wilken and Senator Kelly. These legislators could care less what we have to say, but they do care what business people in their district have to say. We’ll also be making our case to the producers, the labor unions, Arctic Power and the Resource Development Council. By the time we get done, nobody will be able to say they didn’t know what was going on. At this point, I’d like to introduce my Special Assistant for Government and External Affairs, Dennis Roper. Dennis, stand up so everybody can see you. Dennis is the point man on all of these issues. One of these days, he’ll come knocking on your door or give you a phone call. If you have any questions about Senate Bill 186 or the legislative climate we’re looking at, Dennis is the guy to talk to. I’ve never talked to an audience of Anchorage business leaders like this before. I know a lot of you, and I consider you friends and allies in the effort to make Alaska a better place to live. If it sounds like I’m being rude, please understand — I’m just trying to get your attention. My message is clearly a challenge, but more than that, it’s a plea for help. We need it, and you are the kind of people who can help us to squash this anti-North Slope mentality that has poisoned a few of your legislators. I saw a bumper sticker in Anchorage yesterday. It says, “Not in our town.” I’m told it’s a response to the vandalism of a local Muslim businessman’s print shop. That’s a good message. I’d like to see a bumper sticker that says, “Not in our state.” I’d like it to serve as a reminder that Alaskans will not tolerate random acts of vandalism by legislators who hold a grudge — a grudge against rural participation in this state’s wealth and success. It’s going to take more than good will to put this poison in its place. It’s going to take people like you — people with clout who can throw some water on these legislators who are down there in Juneau fanning the flames. We ARE in this together, and we ARE partners. But to tell you the truth, it won’t last long if things don’t change. Thank you for your time. 8/31: ALASKA’S GOVERNOR TAKES ACTION. Northern Gas Pipelines readers will recall that the governor’s pipeline advisory council members and a joint pipeline legislative committee have been concerned with the rapid movement of events. At the Council’s August 2 Juneau meeting, member Charlie Cole observed that the Council should, “…do a little more than simply alerting the Governor….” Member Ken Thompson recommended that one action step the Council could take would be to give input by a certain date. “I am planning to write the Senate Energy Committee myself….” Cole concluded that, “If we want to see the route follow the highway we should not be sanguine about legislation… At an August 13 meeting in Anchorage, members agreed on the importance of providing the Governor with a matrix covering principles the Administration should pursue. The Alaska State Legislature, Joint Committee on Natural Gas Pipelines has expressed similar concerns. Focus of the legislative committee and governor’s council presently, seems to be the fact that Senate Energy Committee proceedings could take up the President’s energy bill in September, already passed by the House. The two primary issues of interest to Alaska in that bill are ANWR and possible gas pipeline amendments. The draft of amendments has been extensively covered here, and may be downloaded from the column on your left. Yesterday, Governor Tony Knowles (Photo: Governor Knowles confers with executive assistant, Mike Abbott, at IOGCC conference, 5/14/01) acted on this concern, outlining a 10-point plan to boost gasline development through federal legislation. That proposal (provided by Bob King in the Governor's office) includes mandating the Alaska Highway route in 1) Mandate the already permitted Alaska Highway route as the preferred gasline route. Knowles said Alaskans are united in favor of the Alaska Highway route, which can be built quickly, and strongly oppose the so-called "over-the-top" route through the Beaufort Sea. 7/28:
As someone who was born and raised in Alaska, I would like to address some misconceptions about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. Many people write that developing ANWR would be destroying a pristine wilderness for just six months’ worth of oil. Statements such as this often use facts to support it that are misleading or false. ANWR is a 19-million-acre region, of which 8 million acres have already been put into formal wilderness status and an additional 9.5 million are designated as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres form a protected area nearly as large as the state of South Carolina, which can never be developed, nor should it be. The remaining 1.5 million acres make up the coastal plain, which according to the latest U.S. Geological Survey estimate contain a mean of 7.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil (this excludes State and Native areas). The figure of 3.2 billion barrels, used by those opposed to development is a low-end estimate for just one part of the area, but even that would be the second largest field ever discovered in the United States, next to Prudhoe Bay (which is hardly a polluted oil field since the North Slope’s petroleum industry is the cleanest, most technologically advanced and most heavily regulated in the world). 8 billion recovered barrels is equivalent to our entire domestic use for well over a year, not six months. However, no policy maker is trying to say that if we were to open ANWR we would be independent of foreign oil. Rather, the oil produced could be used to supplement our imports for the next 20 years. According to agencies that would be in charge of coastal plain development, only about 2,000 acres are needed. That is approximately 1/10,000th of ANWR. Some environmentalists claim that the coastal plain is the last 5 percent of the Arctic coastline (not the Alaskan coastline) that is not being drilled, but this figure is false. Only 14 percent of the entire 1,100-mile Arctic coastal plain is open to oil exploration. Furthermore, exploration and development usually occurs in the winter months, when the temperature reaches -40 degrees Fahrenheit and there are 56 days of total darkness. If a well is determined to be dry, it is capped off and there is little evidence of work when the ice melts in the spring. Exploration and development has also changed in recent years due to improved technology like the development of a directional drill bit, which utilizes horizontal drilling and dramatically reduces the number of oil wells used in drilling. This would allow development of ANWR to be done much less intrusively than previously possible. To understand how development in ANWR could affect the wildlife, the best available information comes from Prudhoe Bay, about 80 miles away. Foremost, there are no listed endangered species living on the coastal plain. Of the animal species affected by opening ANWR, many people seem to focus on the Porcupine caribou herd, which migrates to the coastal plain in the summer. What many do not realize is that not only does the herd in its travel from Canada pass 89 dry oil wells drilled by the Canadian government, but also crosses Canada’s Dempster Highway, all of which has not shown to hinder their migration or survival. In addition, the Central Arctic caribou herd that inhabits part of Prudhoe Bay has grown from 6,000 in 1978 to 27,000 today, according to the most recent estimate by state and federal wildlife agencies. The Inupiat Eskimos, who count on the wildlife as a source of their livelihood, have witnessed how development in Prudhoe Bay can allow wildlife and development to coexist and support the efforts to explore and possibly develop ANWR. Furthermore, the coastal plain is far from a pristine wilderness untouched by human hands, unlike the other 17.5 million acres already protected. It is a flat, treeless, almost featureless plain in northeastern Alaska home to a military radar site and the Inupiat Eskimo community of Kaktovik, a village of 260 complete with houses, stores, a school, power lines, and many other modern-day facilities, even an oil well. We should, additionally, work towards energy conservation and efficiency because the development of the coastal plain would by no means make us independent of foreign oil. Imports of crude oil and refined products now cost the nation $40 billion annually and are the largest single commodity in the U.S. Balance of Trade deficit with other nations, according the U.S. Department of Commerce. But with the development of ANWR, our increased domestic production would lessen this deficit caused by crude oil imports, all the while creating an estimated 736,000 jobs according to Wharton Economic Forecasting Associations. These jobs spread throughout the nation in the production, manufacturing and service sectors. Federal revenues would be increased by tens of billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. I, along with 75 percent of Alaskans and the Inupiat Eskimos that live in ANWR, do not believe that reasonable development in just 2000 of the 19 million acres in ANWR is wrong since it holds resources that we need and can be safely extracted without destruction to the ecosystem. James McElligott, Class of 2003, Economics Concentrator in Mather house, March 5, 2001
Larry Tourangeau, the President of Ernie McDonald Land Corporation, announced today that the Corporation had completed the details of a Funding Agreement on behalf of an Aboriginally owned pipeline corporation that will be created to apply for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the National Energy Board to construct a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska to the Mackenzie Delta to a province of Canada. The Funding Agreement is with Arctic Resources Company, Ltd. Once the Aboriginal pipeline corporation is created the benefits of and obligations pursuant to the Funding Agreement will be transferred to the pipeline corporation. The Funding Agreement is on a non-recourse basis, which means that the only security to be granted will be future cashflows related to pipeline activity. Mr. Tourangeau advises that the issuing of this Press Release is to indicate to the Members of Ernie McDonald Land Corporation, and other Aboriginal land owners who have or may wish to join the ARC/SPC proposal, that the pipeline proposal continues to be advanced without any funding from any level of Government.
Contact: Larry Tourangeau Phone: (867) 587-2455
Rep. Joe Green (Photo-Right)
Wednesday, July 18
Secretary Norton recently returned from her second visit to Alaska’s North Slope. She has now fulfilled her pledge to see North Slope production facilities and the 1002 Area in both the winter and summer seasons. During her testimony she answered questions demonstrating first-hand knowledge of the area. When asked how Alaska Natives feel about oil drilling in the ANWR region she replied the Alaska Federation of Natives voted to support oil exploration and the indigenous Inupiat Eskimos who live on the North Slope also wholeheartedly support production facilities.
Congressman Young, now Vice Chairman of the Resources Committee, engaged in spirited debate with his fellow Members during the hearing.
“This is not a virgin area. It has people living in it, military sites, Native villages. It is not a pristine area. The idea that it’s America’s Serengeti is nonsense. When the 1002 Area was established as a refuge, it was specifically left open to oil drilling. It was agreed then that the 1002 Area would open for development if determined to be important for this nation. I believe it has the largest deposit of oil in this country,” said Rep. Young.
“During this hearing, no one has said anything about the billions of dollars we’re sending overseas for oil. We’re bleeding money from our country in order to fuel this nation. The trade deficit we have today is because of importation of foreign oil.”
Richard Glenn, Vice President of Lands for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation also came to add Native support for Alaskan oil exploration. During his testimony he laid out the ASRC’s three main priorities for development. “First, the protection of our subsistence way of life and the resources upon which we depend. Second, the opportunity for economic self-determination by allowing environmentally responsible exploration and development of Native-owned lands within ANWR. Third, the opening of the public lands of the Coastal Plain to responsible oil and gas exploration and development.”
Jerry Hood, Alaska’s Special Assistant for Energy at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, spoke about the important role that Alaska’s Native Inupiat people have had on current North Slope oil production. “Alaskan oil is produced using the cleanest, most technologically advanced, environmentally sensitive methods in the world. We, Alaskans, set the standard for the industry. This is due, in no small part, to a group of environmentalists who have played a critical role in ensuring that we produce oil in Alaska in the most responsible manner possible. Unlike most environmental groups, this one does not have an office in Washington, D.C. That is because this group has, for generations, lived in Alaska, in ANWR, in Section 1002, in the village of Kaktovik.”
Following the hearing, Congressman Young said he was frustrated by the misinformation, mostly spread by the environmental community that continues to invade this debate.
“I’d like to see more honesty about what we are talking about. One Congressman was passing around pictures from his recent visit to Alaska. He took lots of pictures of ANWR, which is huge – 19 million acres. What he didn’t bring back were pictures of the Coastal Plain – the 2,000 acres that actually make up the proposed drilling site.
“If I didn’t think we could do this correctly I wouldn’t be supporting it. I’ve always said that. If I thought it would hurt the caribou I wouldn’t support it.”
Tulita district Land Trust (the "District") PUBLIC NOTICE To all persons considering the construction of a pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley (the "Proponents") The district is the nominal owner of various parcels of land that may have to be crossed to survey the route or construct the pipeline. Notwithstanding subsection 73(a) of the National Energy Board Act no person shall have access to these lands or waters overlying such lands without the written permission of the District which permission may only be given with the unanimous consent of: Tulita Land Corporation, Fort Norman Metis Land Corporation and Ernie McDonald Land Corporation. The Proponents may obtain further information about this notice by contacting the district's legal advisors: Davis & Company Lawyers * Patent * Trademark Agents Tel. 1.867.669.8401 Fax. 1.867.669.8420 E-mail rhardy@davis.ca The Proponents may also contact the district directly at: Tel. 1.867.588.3738 Fax. 1.867.588.3739 E-mail:ayallee@nt.sympatico.ca -END-
Alleging the deal lacks guarantees and could result in "zero ownership" for First Nations, Reid was critical of the Aboriginal Pipeline Group's memorandum of understanding (MOU). At best, it would only net $1 million per year for the entire Deh Cho region after taxes, despite the fact that an estimated total of $100 billion in gas from the Beaufort Delta would be flowing south, he said. "To me it looks like a great deal for industry ... it looks like a bad deal for the Deh Cho," he told the delegates at last week's Deh Cho Assembly. Paul Precht, an energy economist from Edmonton hired for an independent opinion, agreed with Reid. "No, it doesn't pass the test, but I think with work in some areas ... it can become acceptable," Precht said, adding that the agreement would be exclusive, forbidding discussions with other producer groups. As well, he said the MOU doesn't apply to Alaskan gas, which could one day flow through a Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Reid contended that First Nations would only realize one-third ownership if they met a number of complicated conditions, which would include producing one-third volume of the gas in the pipeline. In addition, he said the MOU should include provisions granting First Nations a role in environmental assessment. Reid said it's essential for the Deh Cho to first sign an Interim Resource Development Agreement with the federal government to guarantee a fair share of resource royalties and to have input in setting the royalty rate. Impact benefits agreements also have to be clearly defined with Canada, setting out job targets, training, profit sharing, contract opportunities, etc., he added. However, such an agreement is thought to be at least a year away. Signing a pipeline deal before then would lessen the DCFN's leverage in negotiations, according to Reid. Deal defenders Doug Cardinal and Dennis Nelner, APG representatives for the Deh Cho, defended the MOU and said its shortcomings could be addressed. Nelner, who noted that the MOU would not be legally binding at this stage, said some risk must be assumed by First Nations if they want any equity. One hundred per cent ownership, as proposed by Arctic Resources Ltd., is not realistic, he argued. "With an all or nothing scenario, nine times out of 10 you get nothing. We saw that with the Norman Wells pipeline," said Nelner. After failing to reach a decision on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline deal after two days of debate, Deh Cho First Nations leaders agreed to meet again in August to try to set a course of action. Randy Ottenbreit, representing Imperial Oil and speaking on behalf of the four Mackenzie Valley producer groups, told the delegates that executives from the oil and gas companies would be willing to meet with First Nations leaders in their respective communities over the summer. He reiterated that aboriginal support for the pipeline is essential. Ottenbreit added that there is no specific
deadline for a decision, yet other developments such as an Alaska/Yukon pipeline
could affect the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, he said.
On June 21st and 22nd, northern Canadian Aboriginal leaders met in Norman Wells, NT to consider a natural gas pipeline option developed by Arctic Resources Company. Following lengthy discussions, the leaders agreed to a series of measures in support of responsible natural gas pipeline development with aboriginal involvement. The Aboriginal leaders who represented the Tulita District and K'ahsho Got'ine District Land owners as well as representatives from an Alberta Aboriginal group agreed to endorse a 100% northern Canadian Aboriginal and Native American owned pipeline program developed by Arctic Resources Company as the Northern Gas Pipeline Project. The Deh Cho First Nations, who also occupy a significant portion of the land through which a pipeline would travel, were represented at the meetings by an official observer. Together the Tulita, K'ahsho Got'ine and Deh Cho Lands represent a majority of the lands in northern Canada through which a natural gas pipeline would travel. In reaching their position, the leaders concluded that the Northern Gas Pipeline Project was the best option for Aboriginal interests with superior economics and direct involvement in the project. The Ernie McDonald Land Corporation ("EMLC"), one of the three Tulita District land owners, executed a Framework Memorandum with Arctic Resources Company. The Framework Memorandum is structured to allow for participation of other Aboriginal land owners following briefings in their communities. EMLC President, Larry Tourangeau, stated that "We firmly believe the interests of Canada, the United States, industry, the environment and the Aboriginal people are best served by an initial single, cost effective pipeline that connects both northern Canada and Alaska to southern markets without damaging either Canadian or Alaskan resources. We also believe that Aboriginal ownership and involvement, as proposed in the Arctic Resources approach, will improve the prospects for a safe, timely and economic project while creating lasting value for our people and our traditions." Since the meetings in Norman Wells, the Fort Norman Metis Land Corporation has agreed to join EMLC as a signatory to the Framework Memorandum. The Northern Gas Pipeline Project is expected to create a natural gas pipeline extending from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska through and under the Beaufort Sea, coming onshore in northern Canada and extending up the Mackenzie River valley to interconnect in Edmonton. While not precluding other approaches available to Alaskans, it represents the lowest cost, and environmentally safest and fastest approach to commercializing North America's largest pools of currently stranded natural gas reserves. It does so in a fashion that is highly beneficial to the interests of both Canada and the United States while not damaging the value of either country's resources. It also does so by proactively combining the interests of northern Canadian Aboriginal and Native American people that live along the pipeline route with an independent business consortium under the Arctic Resources Company umbrella in order to balance the interests of competing stakeholders and provide the business discipline that will be required by the capital markets and industry. The pipeline in northern Canada will be 100% legally and beneficially owned by northern Canadian Aboriginal groups but subject to certain limitations and restrictions in favour of shippers and holders of revenue bonds that are expected to be issued by a special purpose company to be organized and created under the laws of Canada (the "SPC"). The SPC will be owned by Aboriginal groups involved in governance of the lands to be crossed by the project. These groups are expected to become parties to the Framework Memorandum. It is anticipated that similar provisions will be offered in Alaska. Arctic Resources Company has proposed that it manage the project under a long-term Program Administration contract. The Program Administration contract will be the subject of negotiations, over the next two months, between ARC and those Aboriginal groups who sign on to the Framework Memorandum. In addition to its current investor group, ARC will create a consortium including producers and other industry participants along with for-profit northern Canadian Aboriginal and Alaskan Native organizations. ARC should not be confused with the Canadian SPC which will be 100% owned by northern Canadian Aboriginals. The approach is one of inclusion, working in cooperation with industry and government on an economically environmentally sound pipeline capable of serving North American energy needs for decades to come. Contact: Larry Tourangeau, Ernie McDonald Land Corporation: (867) 587-2455 Contact: Bob Murphy, Arctic Resources Company, Ltd.: (713) 888-3300
On June 21st and 22nd, northern Canadian Aboriginal leaders meeting in Norman Wells, NT to analyze natural gas pipeline development options, endorsed the Northern Gas Pipeline Project developed by Arctic Resources Company. The Northern Gas Pipeline Project is expected to create a natural gas pipeline extending from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska through and under the Beaufort Sea, coming onshore in northern Canada and extending up the Mackenzie River valley to interconnects in Edmonton. While not precluding other approaches available to Alaskans, it represents the lowest cost, and environmentally safest and fastest approach to commercializing North America’s largest pools of currently stranded natural gas reserves. It does so in a fashion that is highly beneficial to the interests of both Canada and the U.S. while not damaging the value of either country’s resources. It also does so by proactively combining Canadian Aboriginal and Native American interests that line the pipeline route with an independent business consortium under the Arctic Resources Company umbrella in order to balance the interests of competing stakeholders and provide the business discipline that will be required by the capital markets and industry. Aboriginal leaders, who represented the Sahtu land owners and the Alberta First Nations agreed to endorse the project including its approach to providing pipeline ownership by Aboriginal and Native American groups involved in governance. The Deh Cho, who also occupy a significant portion of the land through which a pipeline would travel, were represented at the meetings by official observers, pending future presentations to be made directly to their leaders in Deh Cho territory. Together, Sahtu and Deh Cho lands represent over 70% of the land in the Northwest Territories through which a natural gas pipeline would travel. The Ernie MacDonald Land Corporation (EMLC), one of six Sahtu land owners whose territory would be crossed by the pipeline, executed a Framework Memorandum with Arctic Resources Company. The Framework Memorandum was structured to include the participation of other Aboriginal land owners following briefings in their communities. EMLC President Larry Tourangeau stated that “we firmly believe the interests of Canada, the United States, industry, the environment and the Aboriginal people are best served by an initial single, cost-effective pipeline that connects both northern Canada and Alaska to southern markets without damaging either Canadian or Alaskan resources. We also believe that Aboriginal ownership and involvement, as proposed in the Arctic Resources approach, will improve the prospects for a safe, timely and economic project while creating lasting value for our people and our traditions.” Since the meetings in Norman Wells, the Fort Norman Metis Land Corporation has agreed to join EMLC as a signatory to the Framework Memorandum. According to Forrest Hoglund, Arctic Resources Company’s CEO, “the endorsement of the Aboriginal leaders marks a major milestone in getting to the right answer quickly on this important project. The one pipeline approach with Aboriginal support is the fastest, lowest cost, best environmental, and best political approach to North America’s most critical energy project.” The pipeline in northern Canada will be 100% owned by Aboriginal groups, but subject to certain limitations and restrictions in favor of shippers and holders of revenue bonds that are expected to be issued by a special purpose company to be organized and created under the laws of Canada (the “SPC”). The SPC will be owned by certain Aboriginal groups involved in governance of the lands to be crossed by the Project. These groups are expected to become parties to the Memorandum. It is anticipated that similar provisions will be offered in Alaska. Arctic Resources Company expects to manage the project under a long-term Program Administration contract, acceptable to rating agencies. In addition to its current investor group, ARC will create a consortium including producers and other industry participants along with for-profit Aboriginal and American Native organizations. The approach is one of inclusion, working in co-operation with industry and government on an economically and environmentally sound pipeline capable of serving North American energy needs for decades to come. Contacts, Houston: Forrest Hoglund, 713-655-7903 Bob Murphy, 713-888-3300 Contact, Calgary: Harvie Andre, 403-205-2526
Arlon related the history of gas pricing with regulation reform and provided a critical review of the performance of price forecasting services as reflected in DOE Energy Information Administration past forecasts (which tended to extrapolate monotonically from a given baseline and completely miss turning points, etc.). During the 1970s NGPA and FPC actions and policies were at odds with respect to their impact on the pricing mechanism. In the mid 1980s, the consequence of regulated price was to prevent producers from increasing/decreasing production in concert with supply-demand forces. By the late 1980s the US gas pipeline system had developed into a fully integrated network with, perhaps, the exception of lingering bottlenecks between the West Coast and east of the Rockies. This created single market east of Rockies. Gas prices spiked to highest-ever levels in the fall of 2000 only to be followed by the steepest-ever collapse. Reasons for: (1) record high sustained economic growth, especially in gas-driven electric power generation: (2) unusually low gas storage conditions (3) high prices for crude oil and refined products that share markets with natural gas. Outlook for reserves expansion & development: Malthusian assumption of long-term terminal exhaustion is false. Enormous L-48 gas supply potential still not close to being exploited; in the unregulated environment, L-48 producers are responding with unprecedented speed in drilling and bringing new reserves on line (Eg. Coal-bed methane in Power River Basin). LNG may become the ultimate global benchmark for natural gas. Presently it costs $3 to deliver LNG anywhere in the world Outlook for gas gathering and transmission capacity: New pipelines typically filled within 18 months.
 FAIRBANKS
DAILY NEWS-MINER, May 15, 2001, By DIANA CAMPBELL:
Borough Mayor Rhonda Boyles has told other members of the Alaska Gasline Port
Authority that she is reluctant to provide another $50,000 of borough money
until she is assured the money will be spent wisely.The mayor's actions put her at odds with other port authority members, who think she doesn't understand how to work on big oil and gas projects. Boyles said it's a question of using public funds well, especially since the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly cut $130,000 from the local school budget. "Probably $50,000 is not a big deal, but to me I have to spend wisely and have accountability," Boyles said. The three governments that make up the port authority--the North Slope Borough, the city of Valdez and the Fairbanks North Star Borough--were asked by the port authority board to contribute another $50,000 to help promote the port authority around the state, said Valdez Mayor Bert Cottle. The North Slope Borough and Valdez have paid the money, which was due by the beginning of the year, Cottle said. The money is on top of the $100,000 each of the three governments have already contributed. To date the authority has collected nearly $725,000 since voters approved its formation in October 1999. In addition to the three governments' contributions, Yukon Pacific put up $250,000 and Bechtel Corp. gave $75,000. Most of that money, $625,000, has been spent on legal fees and travel. Boyles said she is concerned about that and the $1.6 million that several consultants and legal firms have spent on the project's behalf. Their payment is contingent upon the port authority's success in building a natural gas line, said Dave Cobb, the former mayor of Valdez and current member of the port authority. That is of little comfort to Boyles. "All we're doing is spending," Boyles said. In any event, she said, the port authority is one of many entities vying for the attention of the gas producers--Exxon/Mobil, BP Exploration and Phillips Alaska. Those companies have yet to announce that a gas line is a certainty and have yet to select a route. The producers are studying two routes, the Northern Route and the Alaska Highway route. Boyles has asked for and received an audit of the port authority's spending. Now she wants a detailed spending plan before she makes any recommendation to the borough assembly about spending the $50,000. Her decision drew irritation from the port authority's interim executive director. "A commitment was made that once the financial and the audit were done, she would get the money," said director Dave Dengel of Valdez. "Now she's asking for a business plan. We're not sure what that means." The port authority has a development plan that was approved by the Valdez City Council and the two borough assemblies last year. That plan should be adequate, Dengel said. Boyles' actions have some concerned that she may want to have the Fairbanks borough pull out of the authority. She said that isn't the case and that Fairbanks should maintain a place on the port authority. It's the spending that concerns her, she said. "This is about where we are heading and what we are doing,"
she said.
Date: June 8, 2001. Larry Tourangeau questions Joe Handley and Stephen Kakfwi’s comments and actions regarding the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline. 1. What is wrong with Aboriginal people owning 100 % of a pipeline? Mr. Handley don’t you know the value of one dollar compared to thirty cents? 2. What makes you think we may involve ourselves in building a pipeline without the producer’s commitment to ship natural gas? 3. Why is the GNWT publicly endorsing only the APWG’s position of 1/3rd ownership utilizing taxpayer money when there is a 100% offer on the table? Kakfwi’s threatening statement that a pipeline will be built whether or not the Deh Cho wants it is absolutely ridiculous. Where is the business plan of this beautiful deal you want us to embrace? The deal being offered to us at this time to me is dangerous because it is based on excess gas, which we have to find and don’t have at this time. Also why is the investment world not clamoring to invest on our behalf. Good proposals attract investment and this one does not. Since the deal cannot stand on its own merit the APWG is asking the Federal Government to provide equity on its behalf and this will never happen. We will do our due diligence and look at all options before we commit to any proposal. 4. Mr. Handley, I have transacted and financed many deals and have always ended up owning what has been financed on my behalf. I have reaped all benefits from owning and driving my vehicles and other financed assets. Your car sales approach to Aboriginal finance is a public embarrassment. I have the transcripts from your CBC interview. They make absolutely no sense. 5. Mr. Kakfwi do not continue to disrespect the Deh Cho leadership with your insinuating remarks such as volunteering your administrative staff to teach them in essence that thirty cents is better for them rather than one dollar. Look up the phrase due diligence in your dictionary then you will appreciate all of us. Good democratic governments seek mandates from its people, none was given to your government from our Aboriginal leadership regarding your involvement in any pipeline negotiations on our behalf. We will decide how development will proceed on our lands within the parameters of our regional and community governments. 6. The next series of questions I must ask are: Why is the GNWT embracing the APWG,s one third position and acting as a business corporation competing with Western Arctic Energy Corporation and other potential pipeline proposals rather than a neutral regulatory body? Do you and Steve Kakfwi have cabinet approvals to make these public statements? Is this GNWT cabinet policy? What is the public position of each MLA in the GNWT regarding your actions and statements? 7. The APWG has now fired itself. It can no longer act as an Aboriginal forum to make recommendations to the NEB on our behalf since it is now a pipeline applicant. It has spent one million dollars to accomplish this with the blessing of the GNWT. It bothers me that the Feds may ask how these funds were spent within the APWG,s mandate. This forum must be reorganized and strictly controlled in our environment to meet the requirements of Aboriginal leadership. This reorganized forum should now make recommendations on our behalf to the NEB as originally intended. 8. Last but not least we are 100% pro development and want a pipeline. The media and the GNWT must refrain from portraying us as anti development. They must also publish all of our concerns not partial images. We want the investment world to see that we are a serious player in this pipeline initiative and will not be supporting a bankrupt proposal. We have time within the pipeline development phase to look at all options, structure ourselves for major development and acquire a mandate from our people at the regional and community levels to become consortium members to build a Mackenzie Valley Pipeline. Please understand this with respect and courtesy. This is our fiduciary responsibility to our people. You are the
|
Upcoming Conferences: IOGCC, 5/11 -13; Newspaper Front Pages--WORLDWIDE Our view of South Central Alaska's imminent Energy Crisis Founding Publisher's 2002 Editorials and 2001; magazine & newspaper articles; Seattle Chamber of Commerce Speech, 5-8-02, CBC Interview
|
|
Yours is
visit #
Site planning: September 2000 - Site construction initiated: January 1, 2001 - Site uploaded to Internet: March 31, 2001 - Founding publisher, 09-00/1-03 and 3-08/present
© 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009 Northern Gas Pipelines Web pages herein are protected by the Copyright laws of the United States of America and the Internet Copyright Act. This Website is provided as a public service. |
It was
the largest oil and gas deal in Canadian history. It immediately increased Conoco's North American natural gas production and proven natural gas reserves by 50 percent, and worldwide total reserves - oil, natural gas and Syncrude - by 40 percent. Of more interest to Northern Gas Pipelines readers, are the Mackenzie Delta gas reserves which flowed into the new entity. 
Sen.
John Torgerson
(Photo-Left)
