adn.com | Alaska Politics : TransCanada still looking for federal help

Alaska Politics

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier may never have been more interesting than right now -- the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, a popular governor, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Contributors

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins writes about Anchorage city government and politics. He covered last year's campaign for governor, and has blogged extensively about Alaska politics for the past year. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the Daily News before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune two years ago to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Now he's back in Anchorage. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau this summer, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

TransCanada still looking for federal help

Posted by Wesley Loy

Posted: July 24, 2008 - 10:52 am

TransCanada representatives watch the Alaska House debate on Tuesday. From left: Tony Palmer, Patty Bielawski and Tom Roberts. (AP/Seanna O'Sullivan)

From Wesley Loy in Juneau –

TransCanada Corp. looks well on its way to landing the state of Alaska’s exclusive license plus $500 million to support its natural gas pipeline between the North Slope and Alberta.

But executives also are still looking to the U.S. government to carry the project in case the three oil companies that control the gas decline to ship their supplies on the pipeline.

This is the “bridge shipper” concept, where the U.S. government would pay the pipeline fees, called tariffs, until TransCanada can round up real customers.

Here’s a couple of paragraphs from today’s Calgary Herald quoting Tony Palmer, a TransCanada vice president and the company’s point man in Juneau:

Palmer said TransCanada will continue to request bridge-shipper backing from Washington to let the project push forward without commitments from the big three producers.

“It’s more likely we would be discussing it with the next administration and the next Congress . . . to see if they have any interest in those concepts.”

Read the full story here.

login or register to post comments

9 July 25, 2008 - 2:49pm | Beethoven

O Canada

Official Lyrics of O Canada!

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee, and

keep Alaska on her knees!

Any truth that our legislators would like Alaska to become the newest province of Canada? At least then we'd have some representation, eh?

A majority in the House would agree, eh?

July 25, 2008 - 3:03pm | rfn

Aye....

That would seem aboot correct, eh?

8 July 25, 2008 - 10:39am | rfn

When the "tough" get going....

So here we are with a resolution to give Alaska's natural gas to Canada on the cheap passed by the house. And the senate sitting on its' hands. A deadline coming after which Trans Canada has the right to withdraw participation...but it does not appear to have any obligation to withdraw. Risky situation!

A simple up-down vote in the senate can settle whole thing. Since either giveaway proposal is bad for Alaska and killing TC would simply allow the (non)producers to quietly fade away, it should be an easy decision.

But senate "leadership" deserves the quotation marks it has earned. It's a tough decision. To vote for T/C might be seen as caving in to public sentiment. To kill off T/C would seem like the payback for past bribes continues.

So what's a "leader" to do?

Obviously, what that "leader" does best!

Nothing!

Bury it in committee and hope it just goes away with no voter blame being attached. Yup, when the going gets tough, the "tough" get...... GONE !

Can't really blame 'em....old habits die hard.

7 July 25, 2008 - 12:51am | Sheridan_Sheraton

Is that the Peratrovich Gallery?

Or is that the other side?

Nice portrait of the 'BILL ALLENS' of Alaska's future.

6 July 24, 2008 - 1:30pm | jmacinak

all of you...

I know you are all more knowledgable than all the combined wisdom of all those folks who have studied every number and possible outcome for the state. Let me just remind you.. we cannot tell the leaseholders where to sell their product, or where to build a pipeline..as long as they market and sell the product we gave them leases for, they are in compliance. They seem to have preferred to sit on our gas, and any other oil exploration, while they invested in some other not-so-friendly countries. AGIA woke them up. They have never expressed interest in an LNG project in-state to tidewater. When they have (lately) shown interest, it`s to take our gas and go to Canada and their interests in the oil sands, with the ability to move the rest to the lower USA. This is the only politically acceptable choice,.. for them and for America, and our largest trading partner Canada. All else is just unfounded wishes and speculation. Alaska has the ability, both realistically, legally and politically, to do what it chooses with it`s royalty oil and gas, which, ten years from now could be sizable. My point is, any gasline of any size is going to Canada. If you accept that premise, then the next questions are who will build it, when they will build it, and how much will we get as a royalty. Transcanada has answered all of those questions. Exxon didn`t. Conoco didn`t. BP didn`t. They have the right and ability to build a line outside of AGIA, and they say they are going to. Fine. Build it. Just don`t come to us demanding tax subsidies like you did with the oil pipeline, and ELF breaks whenever you think you can squeeze more out of us because the price has come down temporarily. If Exxon and company build it.. fine..get on with it. But just in case you don`t, in a fair amount of time you will have to make a choice. Partner up with Transcanada to build yours, or build two lines. Good luck with that. meanwhile we Alaskans have the right to build our own in-state line to our own people, and if we want to export a bit more, we can. 500mcf a day is 200mcf more than we are expected to need for years in-state, so that`s available for export from our in-state line. That is what we need to focus on.. IN-STATE NATURAL GAS. It is the only reasonably priced fuel, in quantity, that will get us through the rough years ahead,..and beleive me things are going to get a lot worse when it comes to natural resource demand. We can talk all we want about renewables.. but it will take decades and billions before we are even close. Natural gas will be the "bridge" energy resource that keeps Alaskas` economy and future secure. The best step we could make that will affect our future is to keep the pressure on the producers to DO IT, and quit holding out for more record profits in a rising market, and to own a controlling interest in as big an in-state gasline as we can.

July 25, 2008 - 10:28am | hey_georgie_girl_98

jmacinak

...and to own a controlling interest [what percentage?] in as big an IN-STATE GASLINE as we can."

July 24, 2008 - 1:51pm | Beethoven

Paragraphs would be lovely.

You are incorrect on a number of critical points. ARCO made many claims to desiring to build a line to Valdez- but then they got gobbled up in the merger...

All of the North Slope Multinationals have LNG project around the world.

And an in state line would not allow for LNG export under the terms of AGIA. You need way more than 500 MCF per day to justify building the liquefaction facility that would export gas in the volumes that the existing export license allows.

July 24, 2008 - 2:12pm | jmacinak

your wrong..

Under AGIA Alaska can do what it wishes with up to 500mcf. Please correct me if I`m wrong. We already have a permit..and we already export gas to japan. The license allows more. liquefaction facilities can be built in modules and stages to accomadate product. Besides that point,..after a large line is built and flowing at 4.5bcf, any we use and export from here in Alaska is not considered competitive, allowing us to add export capability. The increased volume can come from one or more of the take-off points that are implicit in the TC proposal. We could run that gas to tidewater. Nothing prevents this. Only the fear of the producers. But after sufficient quantities of gas are found( AGIA promotes exploration.. even as Exxon has stifled it for thirty years). Please forgive my chain-of thought typing style.. makes you concentrate doesn`t it...

July 24, 2008 - 9:06pm | lecjb

edit

"Please forgive my chain-of thought typing style.. makes you concentrate doesn`t it..."

If you want to get your point across, editing would help. Most people would skip over something with no paragraph breaks.

July 24, 2008 - 2:59pm | Beethoven

Economics prevents what you are describing.

That is why this is such a bad deal for Alaska- and I am not a producer hack like Halcro when I say this.

July 24, 2008 - 2:01pm | jmacinak

Arco studied it..

and for economic reasons (not enough money and profit) it never materialized. It can not be considered a serious effort.

July 24, 2008 - 1:36pm | rfn

No lies there...

Without it being broken up into paragraphs it's somewhat difficult to follow but not impossible.

Yes, if either TC or the (non)producers build a gas line they are free to market Alaska's gas wherever they want so long as it's done in full compliance with the existing (and woefully inadequate) leases. And so long as they pay their (woefully inadequate) taxes to the extent that manipulated profit figures permit.

However, there is no requirement for Alaskans to do anything to actively help them prostitute our resources to benefit a foreign nation. We can't say "no" but there will be many opportunities to question, inspect, and possibly not issue permits for anything not up standards.

Of course we need to be on guard to ensure that no part of any process in any way precludes the use of Alaska's natural gas for the benefit of Alaskans. I know, there is nothing like that now. We need to be damn sure nothing gets slipped into some otherwise innocent-appearing document.

5 July 24, 2008 - 12:16pm | Emperor

The more we hear and read..

...the more I believe TransCANADA is simply in this for the half a billion dollar give away that Palin is offering. They are going to string us out for YEARS and will NEVER get anywhere close to construction, never mind getting the necessary permits. It's simply DOA.

Palin should have dumped the whole AGIA process when she received only one "qualifying" proposal. That in itself should have told her that the process was not the right approach to take. But she couldn't do that, because that would be tantamount to admitting she was wrong. And as we all know, with Palin, she is NEVER wrong and it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault when things go poorly.

Even though the writing was on the wall, the gutless worms in the House approved this garbage. What is curious is that this proposal was mostly backed by Democrats. Since when have the Democrats been for oil and gas development? Did they vote for the TC plan because they know that it will never lead to a gas line, and that is more in line with the Democratic agenda? Now they, can say, "we voted for the gas pipeline, it's those Republicans and the criminal oil companies that are stopping development".

Our last hope is the Senate. Is there enough integrity and courage to say no to Palin risking her wrath? I hope so, but I really doubt it.

4 July 24, 2008 - 11:29am | Beethoven

Alaska must do better

That TransCanada is telling Alaska we are number four on the list of major pipeline projects is unacceptable.

Keystone #1
Keystone #2
(Both are massive pipeline projects across the USA and Canada).
Mackenzie #3
Alaska #4

It will be up to the Alaska Senate to bring some adult supervision into this debate and reject this scheme.

When you see every Democrat voting in unison then you know some deal has been cut- and that is a terrible way to set public policy.

This will be an instance where the Constitutional separation of powers works. The Palin administration has lost their perspective- they are long past being objective participants. With every new embarrassing TransCanada gaff, the Palin folks continue to demonstrate their foolishness. I bet if TransCanada announced that they would wait for 12 years to even begin the gas line the Palin folks would be undeterred- oh wait, that has already happened.

This House has too many people who believe that it is either a producer deal or a Canadian deal... hence the Demos vote yesterday.

So it will be cooler, more deliberative heads in the Senate who reject this massive giveaway of 500 million dollars when Alaska can do so much better with our own gasline.

Wally is right. I wish he was governor right now.

July 24, 2008 - 2:24pm | jmacinak

hey brahms...

..you guys keep missing the whole point. AGIA and TC keep the producers MOVING. And without Alaska having to fork over BILLIONS in tax or royalty concessions. I think we all agree if we can get ANY big line moving with just 500 million, it`s better than a maybe, for ten billion, which is all Murkowski could do. Extortion is the same, no matter what name you call it.

July 24, 2008 - 9:12pm | lecjb

that was my impression also.

CPAI and BP didn't even come out with Denali until the pressure was on that someone else might do something. I agree with jmacinak that that might be worth $500 million right there.

July 24, 2008 - 2:18pm | jmacinak

..and if the feds hadn`t "intervened"

the republican majority would still be sucking at Exxon and Veco`s teat. We have been able to move the ball down field with their help,..or we would still be screwed and blued. You all seem to keep overlooking those little facts.. especially halcro.

July 24, 2008 - 11:32am | rfn

While I agree

both the T/C and (non)producer's pipeline schemes are evil and should be laid to rest...

I'm compelled to ask:

Those Democrats voting in unison....how many Alaska Democrats have been put behind bars for being corrupted over oil-related issues? I do read The Voice of The Times regularly and would expect to see major headlines there if there were any so convicted. Of course I do miss a day now and then, so please share you information.....

July 24, 2008 - 12:15pm | Beethoven

Democrats, Republicans, and secret deals.

RFN, I am not suggesting the Democrats are on the take. Although in times past I do know of Democrats who were just as crooked as the Republicans- I think of Tony Knowles and the horrors he perpetrated. The $400,000 he got from Bill Allen, his firing of the top DEC official involved in pipeline corrosion issues...

But I digress.

There have been a lot of deals cut. Not crooked, Vic Kohring stuffing his pockets with hundred dollar bills-deals, but the usual political gamesmanship where public business is conducted in secret.

If Governor Palin believes that her TransCanada deal is so grand, it should stand on its own merits- not on backroom dealing.

And the Republicans are not immune- hey, it is a Republican administration- you have a certain senators doing backroom deals- like the one senator who would like to be Senate President next year, and he has reportedly given his support to the Canadian deal if he gets the top job.

If Sarah Palin really wants to be taken seriously, she needs to understand that "trust and transparency" is more than an actual slogan. Doing back room deals is no better than what Frank Murkowski and Jim Clark did.

July 24, 2008 - 12:33pm | rfn

The whole pipeline deal

as currently proposed is pretty much treasonous. I've stated my reasons over and over and will as often as necessary but this does not seem to be one of those times.

I really don't believe there any backroom deals going on right now. Not that there might not have been previously. What I think we're seeing now is fear and a whole bunch of legislators trying desperately to hold onto their seats. Believing mistakenly that voting for Trans Canada is somehow voting against Evil Big Oil in the eyes of the electorate. Miscalculation. Consider the polls showing Alaskans are more and more opposed to any giveaway. Whether to the oilies or to The Canadians.

The smartest political contribution I can imagine just now would be giving money to The First Nations of Canada to help their legal fund to block either pipeline entirely. Dunno if that's legal but maybe it could be called "charitable" rather than "political". The beneficiaries of the charity, of course, not being anybody in Canada. Rather, everybody in Alaska whose resource would be kept from pillage!

July 24, 2008 - 9:22pm | lecjb

Backroom deals, schmackroom deals -

if you've ever sat in the gallery, you can see that they make deals right out in the open on the chamber floor. That's politics, folks. It's not the deals that are illegal, it's whether they personally gain from the deals. I'm sure we will hear and read in the days ahead why individuals voted nay or yeay. And I'm sure they all know better than to vote a particular way because of personal gain, what with the new federal prison residents in Oregon and California (or is Vic still awaiting transfer in Anchorage?)

3 July 24, 2008 - 11:15am | Stags_Leap

Senate Supercommittee pay attention

this is exactly why Palin's TC proposal should not even make it to the floor for a vote. And this is exactly why we need full disclosure from TC on their 2004 proposal. Connect the dots....No Gas, no help from the Feds, and not happening until after they complete the McKenzie Project..

Instead of giving away that $500 Million -why not pump it into law enforcement initiatives. You could start by fully funding the Troopers.

July 24, 2008 - 3:09pm | yujump

Nothing new or original

The Stagcrow is still in search of a brain!!!!

July 24, 2008 - 1:54pm | jmacinak

Your real good at pointing out

what you see wrong with what this state is doing. This information is not new. It was there for all of us when AGIA was passed and TC made it`s proposal. Yes it may take ten years for TC`s pipeline.. but it will take just as long, even longer, for any proposed producer pipeline in the same direction. So what it boils down to is who do we dance with? Who will give us the BEST DEAL. We have tried dealing with Exxon and company for years to get off the stick and start investing more, exploring more, and producing more oil and new gas. They chose not to. Read my previous post stags,.. and tell us all where my conclusions are wrong. All you seem to say over and over is that it`s better to buckle under to industry control and extortion to the tune of billions of dollars in give-backs before they ever sign on the dotted line and commit. No thanks. We have been there and done that. AGIA changed things.. and for the better by far than the previous status-quo. Your arguments have wrung hollow for too long.

July 24, 2008 - 11:19am | rfn

Yes!

They definitely need more Tasers!

2 July 24, 2008 - 11:10am | Syntax

This is why

The Senate must vote NO to grant TransCanada this license. TransCanada has no intentions about building the Alaskan gas line until they build two other projects first.

Wally Hickel is right.

1 July 24, 2008 - 11:27am | black33

The feds have already said no

The federal government is not going to give direct subsidies to Transcanada or anyone else if they don't have enough customers to make a pipeline economically viable. Do you think any American citizens- except the Palins and Marty Rutherford- will support such blatant support by American taxpayers of a foreign company, that Americans pay more taxes so their gas bills are slightly lower?

Question: Is this really a basic condition of AGIA?

Question: Despite the Todd Palin regime's earlier denial that this was only a "concept" and not a condition, given recent events involving shading of the truth, keeping e-mails secret, and so on, doesn't it make sense to find out the truth before we spend $500 million- not after?

According the the News-Miner:

Meanwhile, TransCanada has proposed the federal government act as a “bridge shipper” to cover some of the shipping tariffs, potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year, until North Slope gas owners agree to use the pipeline.

U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), in his annual address to the state Legislature on Tuesday, said Congress would not provide additional financial support for the TransCanada proposal.

“They have suggested that the state join together to come to Congress to obtain a bridge-shipper provision and to increase the loan guarantee,” Stevens said. “Neither has any hope at all.”

'Nuff said.

July 24, 2008 - 2:46pm | jmacinak

TC said...

The 18 billion in a "bridge shipper promise" by the feds would help,..but it is not mandatory, as TC has plainly stated in it`s proposal. They stated they can and will pursue dilligently, a large line to Alberta. Like I said,..this is old news that some die-hards are trying to portray as some kind of newly found landmine. Yes the McKenzie line is slated to be completed first. They had that commitment long before Murky was going to give ten billion bucks away for nothing. The Canadian line, WHOEVER builds it, is going to take at least ten years, or longer, to first gas. Just the way it is in the real world. One group says they will do it for a 500 million investment.. the other group says.. hmmm what do they say? They say we WON`T commit "our" gas without ten billion dollars and a 45 year tax freeze, tying the hands of this states` government. No thanks.

July 24, 2008 - 2:54pm | rfn

Ten billion?

Hey, that was then and now is now. When they come back with their guns drawn and hands out next time there'll also be a penalty for having refused them the first time. Try 25-billion in concessions and a perpetual freeze on taxation at about 2%. Not that they wouldn't have the agates to demand tax-free; just that one or two stockholders might get to feeling guilty. That could lead to questions at the annual meeting that might delay the catered lunch for a few minutes.

Remember, it's in Alaska's best interests that neither of these schemes to squander our resources in a strange and foreign land go anywhere.

July 24, 2008 - 4:25pm | HD

hey, rfn

Paragraph 1: perceptive and wickedly amusing, thanks!
Paragraph 2: not yet convinced, although you have argued long and well.

In this world of sin and sorrow there is nothing perfect. Still, I view the TC proposal and license as "better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick." And the Denali project looks to me very much like a sharp stick.

Natural gas is a clean-burning and efficient fuel, and a large supply will be needed throughout the lower 48 for long into the future. I rather doubt that Alaska's natural gas will be squandered to "cook" Canada's oil sands.

July 24, 2008 - 4:37pm | rfn

Sharp sticks....

If anyone really wants to throw away Alaska's resources for minimal return then, yes, TC is a good thing. In fact, the only thing that is likely to keep the (non)producers from simply shuttering their little camp when the snow falls and then forgetting to reopen it in Spring (should we have one next year, bucking the established trend of this summer).

Nobody can deny that there is a big foreign-owned petro-chemical complex at the point where the alleged someday pipeline will terminate. Nobody can deny natural gas is needed to roast the mud. It's established fact, FERC's own inventory of pipelines from Canada to The U.S. that they are all filled to capacity with Canadian natural gas. Why use Canadian gas that can be exported at premium rates when Alaskan gas can be available subsidiary-to-subsidiary at cheapest possible rates?

Remember, when our gas is used to make that pseudo-petrol, The U.S. government has already outlawed importation because it produces more pollution than standard drilling/extraction techniques. Therefore, good-bye America; Hello China! And don't even get me started about that mega-airport.

Of course if TC dies, then the oilies have the choice of absconding with our gas for their own value-added purposes or just letting it stay in the warehouse. So, yeah, maybe TC is better than a sharp stick in the eye. More like the death of a thousand cuts. Funny thing is, the end result is the same; only the timing is a little different.

As to the lower 48? Those are people who salivate for gas to hit $10/gallon because that will save the world from Global Warming (Gospel according to algore, 3:27). The don't want ANWR drilled. Then don't want the offshore North of Alaska drilled. Let's give 'em what they want. Not another drop of Alaskan oil; not a whiff of Alaskan gas...well, except, perhaps, just maybe, some of the other kind!

July 24, 2008 - 11:38pm | akmooster

rfn..

shouldn't to whom and what they do with it be a non-issue then?
Let's get it out of the ground and (i love this term) monetize it. Who cares what or why or who.... just do it.
That would be living up to our constitution, no?
Why do you worry about what it will be used for and at the same time worry that we are not selling it to the highest bidder?
America, which may be third world now, is immaterial. And the Great Depression II will put everything back in place as it should be. Don't worry if your SUV makes 9 or 12 miles per gallon. Worry about what you are going to kill to eat tonight.

July 25, 2008 - 10:30am | rfn

Money has a way of declining in value.

"Monetize" the natural gas now and it won't be there when prices triple in a few more decades.

Worry about where Alaska is going to get fuel for Alaskan businesses and homes. Whether Alaskans will have jobs in a petro-chemical industry or whether they'll go to Canadians.

Worry about how many Alaskans will be laid off when the air cargo business is sucked out of the state by the cheap jet fuel made from Alaska's natural gas cooking Canadian mud.

Of course if you'd rather just learn to sing "O Canada"....well, that's a private decision.

Still, we need a great depression if today's generations are to learn about belt tightening and making best use of what they have. Which bring us right back to best use of Alaskan resources.

July 25, 2008 - 11:17am | akmooster

Or rfn....

worry about America finding alternative energy and we can leave the gas in the ground because it isn't worth enough to ship. It's going to be a long time before any of it gets sold you know even if we start trying today. And, there is a big push and lots of money out there to replace the need which will lower the price.
I agree with your last paragraph.

July 25, 2008 - 12:41pm | rfn

No complaint about alternative energy

except those from the very environmentally conscious Edward F. Kennedy when he killed off the Buzzard's Bay windfarm because it might possibly spoil his view.

And of course the long-standing environental objections to any new dams or geo-thermal utilization that might disrupt the pristine scenery.

Not to mention the battles between neighbors over whose solar panels are blocking whose view or whose shade trees are blocking whose solar panels. Fortunately my own solar panels are at remote sites where there are no neighbors. They work well for their purpose, even just shy of The Arctic Circle. The windmills were a bust, though; icing blades kept flying off. Again, fortunate there were no neighbors to injure.

Some people are concerned about disposal of the batteries from the solar systems when they wear out. Foolish concern. Just save 'em until you're going to relocate the outhouse; drop them in the old pit and the acid will help clean up the other stuff. Bury it all, of course.

No, it's clear America doesn't want alternative energy and is totally enamoured of $10/gallon gasoline. Wish it were not so!

I did my part toward the depression we need; supported both Kerry and Knowles who offered the strongest potential but, alas........

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

Alaska Politics

Contributors

Archive

TransCanada still looking for federal help