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,  ANS, APG, APWG, ANGTA, ANGTS, AGPPT, ANWR, ARC, CARC, CAGPL, CAGSL, FPC, FERC, GTL, IAEE, LNG, NEB, NPA, TAGS, TAPS, and more...

2008 LINKS: Join the Alaska Gas Pipeline Blog Discussion; Governor Sarah Palin's AGIA Links; 2007 ACES tax bill links; Department of Revenue 2007 ACES tax documents;  2007 ACES tax Presentations; 2007 ACES tax news; Alaska Gas Pipeline Training and Jobs; Gas Pipeline and Economic Development; Andrew Halcro; Bjørn Lomborg; FERC's Natural Gas Website Links

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

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

LEST WE FORGET!

Northern Gas Pipelines: The Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Route

Please see complete article here.

Introduction:

• Forward.  This is a reference page providing general information on the gas pipeline routing along the Alaska Highway.  The title refers to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS) while Alcan refers to one of the names employed by early project sponsors.  The information was thought to be current on 10-1-02. The site is still under construction; submissions / additions / corrections are welcomed.  (Ref. Whitehorse Star Alaska Highway 60th Anniversary series: 10-25-02)
• Independent Site.  This is an independent, information site.  It is not indorsed by Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd. nor its owners, TransCanada Pipelines, LP., and Westcoast Gas Transmission Co. (Later sold to Duke Energy).  Neither is it indorsed by the Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team , led jointly by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Phillips Alaska Petroleum Company (Later merged into ConocoPhillips), and ExxonMobil Production Company, nor by "Withdrawn Partners" nor other companies.  However, the author has attempted to gather factual, useful information and anticipates making changes--with suggestions invited from all sources--that will ultimately provide historians with an authoritative record. 
• 2002 Update.  By 2001, Foothills was aggressively pursuing its plans, its momentum having been in check since the increase in gas supply and lower natural gas prices encountered in the 1980's, persisting until 2000.  With the advent of a tripling of gas prices at one point in 2000, Foothills--as well as a modern generation of Alaska producing companies, and others--began to reconsider viability of a new or renewed North Slope gas project.  Gas prices remain lower than alternative fuels, according to American Gas Association President & CEO Robert N. Parker.  Even so, the 2000 increase in price, though temporary, resulted in a renewed enthusiasm for (1) connecting to 'existing reserves of stranded Arctic gas', and (2) discovering new reserves.  As we approach Fall of 2002 (This writing: 7-02), the accelerated exploration and production of the past year joined with the phenomenon of economic recession and a war on terror, have contributed to a reduction in demand and price.  However, the outlook for long-tern gas demand growth continues to remain bright.  Foothills worked until spring 2002 to reestablish the validity of  'seasoned' legal agreements, permits and other critical documents, though they maintain diligent work has continued during the 25 year interim period.  This spring they announced they would cease funding Alaska's Gas Pipeline Office, working to process project permits.  North Slope producers have completed a year long study group effort to prepare for regulatory challenges and prove the merit of a particular routing.  They spent  $125 million in their due diligence research effort after mobilizing over 100 company employees in both countries and several hundred contract personnel.  Principal options they explored were the Alaska Highway "Southern Route" and an over the top,  "Northern Route".
  • Competition.  The Northern Route has a proponent: Arctic Resources Company, Ltd., principal adversary of an Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Project.  Certain proponents of a Trans-Alaska Gas LNG System (TAGS) terminating in the Valdez, also compete for the North Slope gas but have modified their approach to allow for 'tapping in' to an Alaska Highway project.  See Yukon Pacific Corp. reference here.
  • Producer Challenges.  It is interesting to note that neither Northern Route nor Southern Route nor LNG proponents own any of the gas.  All proclaim their route is in the best interest of citizens.  The North Slope gas producer studies have indicated that to date none of the projects is viable but that with Federal expediting legislation and incentives, fiscal and regulatory clarity in the U.S. and Canada and favorable market conditions the Alaska Highway project could be supported.  See Spring '02 producer update.
  • Politics.  The state of Alaska, Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories have adopted political positions on pipeline routing, in general supporting projects promising the most buried steel within their borders.  Most proponents are vigorously promoting a specific route.  As projects move more into the political/regulatory arena, and with many billions of dollars at stake, one can anticipate growing public dialogue in both countries as 2003 arrives.  By May 1, 2000, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and President George W. Bush were specifically mentioning Arctic gas reserves as plans moved ahead to establish a "North American Energy Pact", and to this date the two leaders remain 'route neutral'.
  • ANGTS History and References.  Meanwhile, the ANGTS project has weathered many storms, from its birth over 1/4 century ago, through the regulatory competition of the 1970's, abiding the lowered demand and price for gas during two decades.  See our 1-03 Far North Oil and Gas Review, article: "The Struggle for A Franchise".

Current news is perhaps the best source for tracking evolution of the project:  See several updates below and the news archives.  Also refer to Southern Route proponents' presentations and maps and a year of support efforts by the Governor's Alaska Highway Natural Gas Pipeline Policy Council and the Legislature's Joint Gas Pipeline Committee.

1-10-03. "Arctic Gas Pipeline Construction Impacts On Northern Transportation" was released by Transport Canada, Prairie and Northern Region. The work was completed by PROLOG Canada Inc. in association with The Van Horne Institute. Contacts: Transport Canada - Roy Matson - Regional Mgr Coordination & Policy - 780-495-3814; PROLOG Canada - Don Dean or Kells Boland - 403-294-1200.     Readers may download this study by looking under "Canada" in the left margin.

9-8-02.  VANCOUVER SUN by Scott Kent-Thousands of B.C. jobs are being put at risk by the actions and words of Herb Dhaliwal, the federal natural resources minister and MP for Vancouver South-Burnaby.

As the most vocal federal opponent to the proposed Alaska Highway Natural Gas Pipeline, Dhaliwal is ignoring the benefits this project could bring to B.C., and he's hoping nobody back home will notice.

This pipeline would be the largest private sector project ever built, with an estimated cost of $20 billion. Along the way, it would create about 375,000 person years of employment, 67,000 of which would be in B.C., and add about $30 billion to Canada's GDP.

That's why Duke Energy, Phillips, TransCanada Pipelines, BP and hundreds of other private sector companies back the idea.

As Yukon's energy, mines and resources minister, I have been doing all I can to ensure my constituents benefit from what will be the largest private sector project ever built.

But the largest stumbling block to this project in Canada is Dhaliwal.

Over the past four months, he has been rumbling about unfair subsidies and market distortions, and just this week proclaimed he's making a pilgrimage to Washington, D.C,. to ensure the Americans don't unfairly support this project.

Unfortunately, Dhaliwal doesn't know what he is talking about.

And he's risking more than 10,000 B.C. jobs every time he makes an anti-pipeline statement.

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are hammering out the details of proposed energy legislation right now. It is probable that the legislation will include incentives to boost continental oil and gas production, including Alaska gas.

Canadian politicians should welcome those incentives. There is no cost to Canadians and no risk to Canadian reserves.

If incentives for this project appear in the bill, the project will likely go ahead. If not, the project risks being shelved for another two decades.

That's a long time to wait when tens of thousands of Canadian jobs are at stake.

Still, Dhaliwal is telling the world that the proposed Senate provisions will distort the market and threaten to leave the Northwest Territory's Mackenzie Valley pipeline in limbo.

TransCanada pipelines, a major player in both projects, disagrees.

"People think, it seems, the U.S. support for the Alaska Highway project somehow imperils the Mackenzie Valley project," TransCanada CEO Hal Kvisle told a Yukon newspaper last week. "That's not the case, in our view."

The Yukon government has always put its trust in private industry, and we continue to do so.

So, when a company with a vested interest in the Mackenzie Valley project says there's no problem with the U.S. bill, we tend to agree.

Yet, only days later, Dhaliwal was out in public threatening to use political means to block a project that would bring investment, jobs and economic clout to B.C.

He is also ignoring Canada's long history of funneling government money into energy development. Hibernia, off the coast of Newfoundland, benefited from nearly $4 billion in subsidies from the Canadian government, nearly $2 billion of which was in straight cash infusions or loan guarantees.

Alberta's tar sands project also received royalty relief during its first years of production.

Even the Mackenzie Valley exploration that has created so much momentum for that proposed pipeline received help from the federal government through the Petroleum Incentives Program in the early 1980s.

We believe that money was well spent.

Getting energy products to market, especially clean alternatives like natural gas, is a massive task burdened by momentous risk.

Before any company looks at throwing $20 billion down on the table to develop a resource, it needs to be certain no government is going to willfully block its efforts for political reasons.

In short, every time Dhaliwal threatens permitting sanctions against this pipeline project, he is slowly burying one of the largest economic opportunities to come British Columbia's way in a long time.

I suggest that the senior cabinet minister for British Columbia could do more for his constituents, if not his short-term political future, if he ensured his constituents benefited from this project.

Scott Kent is the Yukon's minister of energy, mines and resources.

7-23 Updates: 00:10 ET.  Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Project Update.  Last week, we alerted readers to the withdrawal by certain pipeline companies from the memorandum of understanding applying to the Alaska portion of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS), operated by Foothills Pipe Lines, Ltd.  This Alaska segment is promoted by the Alaska Northwest Natural Gas Transportation Company component of the project.  Please see our report on Duke Energy Company’s withdrawal here.  After questioning other parties, Peter Thomas (NGP Photo, 2-8-02), who heads up the Williams Arctic Project Team, was kind enough to respond.  “The Williams Arctic Project Team has been working under a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the other withdrawn partners in ANNGTC to develop the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System ("ANGTS") proposal for consideration of the Alaska North Slope producers”, Thomas said last night.  “Due to lack of progress in discussions with the producers, and toward full resolution of the withdrawn partners' historical issues, some of the parties to the MOU have provided notification that they have withdrawn from this agreement.”   We asked what effect this action would have on Williams participation in commercialization of Alaska North Slope gas.  “In our opinion”, Thomas said, “the withdrawal of some of the major parties to this MOU ends our formal association for the development of the ANGTS project.”  He said the company entered into the MOU November 15, 2001.  “The MOU established key principles for re-enlisting in the Alaskan partnership to construct the Alaskan portion of the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline project ("ANGTS"). A key element of the MOU was that the current and re-enlisting withdrawn parties were committed to eliminating historic and other commercial barriers to construct the Alaska Highway pipeline project.   Our consortium immediately went to work updating the ANGTS project and presenting an updated economic proposal to the producers.  However, to date there has not been sufficient progress in discussions with the producers or toward full resolution of all the historical issues for the MOU to continue.”  Thomas said that his company’s “fundamental beliefs” about commercializing Alaska North Slope gas have not changed.  “We believe Alaska North Slope gas will be required to meet North American demand. We still maintain that the Alaska Highway route is the best option to transport North Slope gas to markets.  Most importantly, Williams will continue to work with stakeholders and to fully support efforts to make commercialization of Alaska North Slope gas a reality”, Thomas said.

Natural Gas Prices

 Linking to Us!

Founding Publisher's  2002 Editorials and 2001; magazine & newspaper articles; Seattle Chamber of Commerce Speech, 5-8-02, CBC Interview

Yours is visit # to this website.

Contact the Webmaster

Site planning begun: September 2000 - Site construction initiated: January 1, 2001 - Site first uploaded to Internet: March 31, 2001 - Founding publisher, 09-00/1-03/3-08

© 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008 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.