TransCanada files open-season plan for proposed gas line - Anchorage Daily News
Another significant milestone in the long, long road to bring Alaska natural gas to market. TCPL has filed notice with the US federal energy regulator for its intention to hold its "Open Season" to gather shipping commitments for the line.
The filing contains provisions for both a land line through Canada and a line to Valdez, where gas would be liquified and shipped... well, we're not totally sure where.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Oh, that wasn't obvious at all...
Canada pipeline report may help unlock federal funds - Vancouver Sun
This report helpfully suggests that with the Mackenzie Pipeline project being conditionally approved by the Joint Review Panel, that it might assist in talks between the project proponents and the Canadian government for financial support.
In other news, water is found to be "wet"
This report helpfully suggests that with the Mackenzie Pipeline project being conditionally approved by the Joint Review Panel, that it might assist in talks between the project proponents and the Canadian government for financial support.
In other news, water is found to be "wet"
The Empire (or Imperial, at least) Pushes Back
CBC News - Money - Environmental panel's demands could kill Mackenzie project
Imperial Oil has served notice that they're not crazy about some of the conditions placed on development of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline project. Some of the points they take issue with:
- A requirement that all operations in the area of the Mackenzie Delta bird sanctuary must be no louder than 50 decibels 300 metres away from the fence.
- Strict requirements on reporting a number of activities (such as garbage incineration)
- Detailed permafrost assessments before trenching is performed
Doubtless these requirements do add to the cost of the project, and there will likely be some back-and-forth in front of the NEB to determine how crucial these conditions are. I'm somehow doubtful that these conditions will be allowed to kill the project, though.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
2010: The Timeline So Far...
We're not even through January, and from the timetable of events already scheduled 2010 is shaping up to be an extremely significant year in the history of both northern pipeline projects.
For instance...
Denali sets open season date - Petroleum News
This item outlines plans for the Open Season for the Denali Pipeline project, one of two currently aiming to build the Alaska Highway Pipeline. The other project (AGIA/TCAlaska) will be filing its Open Season plan with FERC at the end of January, with the Open Season itself beginning in May. Denali's plan will be filed in April, and (with approval) will begin in July.
The Open Seasons are of crucial significance; simply put they give producers in the North Slope region the opportunity to say how much gas they'd likely ship through either of the proponents' pipeline projects. These results will essentially provide a sense of how economically viable either project would be...
Mackenzie project gets hearing dates - Petroleum News
This item announces the last regulatory round for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline project, the final hearings before the National Energy Board. These will begin in Yellowknife on April 12, and are scheduled to wrap up in Inuvik on April 25. The NEB panel will then work on their final report, expected in the fall.
While these items represent different phases in the regulatory process for each project, each is crucial. It should be an interesting year...
For instance...
Denali sets open season date - Petroleum News
This item outlines plans for the Open Season for the Denali Pipeline project, one of two currently aiming to build the Alaska Highway Pipeline. The other project (AGIA/TCAlaska) will be filing its Open Season plan with FERC at the end of January, with the Open Season itself beginning in May. Denali's plan will be filed in April, and (with approval) will begin in July.
The Open Seasons are of crucial significance; simply put they give producers in the North Slope region the opportunity to say how much gas they'd likely ship through either of the proponents' pipeline projects. These results will essentially provide a sense of how economically viable either project would be...
Mackenzie project gets hearing dates - Petroleum News
This item announces the last regulatory round for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline project, the final hearings before the National Energy Board. These will begin in Yellowknife on April 12, and are scheduled to wrap up in Inuvik on April 25. The NEB panel will then work on their final report, expected in the fall.
While these items represent different phases in the regulatory process for each project, each is crucial. It should be an interesting year...
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Arctic gas lines: Adversaries or teammates?
Arctic gas lines: Adversaries or teammates?: Alaska Dispatch, January 13, 2010
Not a bad piece, though the title's a bit misleading; one expects some comparison/contrast between the projects, and there really isn't any save for the mention that the Mackenzie line is far further along in the regulatory process than the Alaska line.
The article quotes Jack Weixel from Bentek Energy as speculating that "Alberta may actually end up needing the gas more than the lower 48..." because of declining conventional reserves there. This is a significant point that relates to both the Mackenzie Valley and Alaska Highway gasline projects: conventional gas reserves are declining all over North America. This, at a time when prices are low and there is a strong political push to move industry to natural gas as a fuel source in place of petroleum oil or coal.
"But, of course, there's all that shale gas..." is the argument there, but we need to avoid taking that for granted. Shale is absolutely going to be an important source of gas, but there are some significant questions about it, too, both environmental and economical (shale is still uneconomical for prices below $8/MMcf and significant questions remain around groundwater and ultimate well production life).
If either project were completed and running today, it would be uneconomical. This piece suggests that neither would be economical in the next 5 years, either, but since neither one could come onstream before that, the point is moot. In fact, when either project is announced, energy consumers throughout North America will make their long-range plans accordingly.
Not a bad piece, though the title's a bit misleading; one expects some comparison/contrast between the projects, and there really isn't any save for the mention that the Mackenzie line is far further along in the regulatory process than the Alaska line.
The article quotes Jack Weixel from Bentek Energy as speculating that "Alberta may actually end up needing the gas more than the lower 48..." because of declining conventional reserves there. This is a significant point that relates to both the Mackenzie Valley and Alaska Highway gasline projects: conventional gas reserves are declining all over North America. This, at a time when prices are low and there is a strong political push to move industry to natural gas as a fuel source in place of petroleum oil or coal.
"But, of course, there's all that shale gas..." is the argument there, but we need to avoid taking that for granted. Shale is absolutely going to be an important source of gas, but there are some significant questions about it, too, both environmental and economical (shale is still uneconomical for prices below $8/MMcf and significant questions remain around groundwater and ultimate well production life).
If either project were completed and running today, it would be uneconomical. This piece suggests that neither would be economical in the next 5 years, either, but since neither one could come onstream before that, the point is moot. In fact, when either project is announced, energy consumers throughout North America will make their long-range plans accordingly.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Local Benefit: Heat and Power
CBC News - North - N.W.T. keeps community natural gas study secret
Sometimes lost in all the discussion of money, jobs, and potential environmental issues with pipelines is the potential long-term benefit to communities near the line.
This piece discusses the possibility of using gas from the Mackenzie Gas Line to power and/or heat communities along its alignment. This is a huge benefit; it's a reliable, clean (cleaner than diesel, certainly), and relatively cheap heating source. The CBC piece doesn't discuss this, but power can easily be part of the equation, too, when cogeneration power projects are built in conjunction with compressor stations.
Of course, this discussion applies to the Alaska Highway gasline as well, with implications up and down the highway. I'm envisioning Beaver Creek with power and gas from the line, and the cost of living and working in Whitehorse could drop dramatically.
Sometimes lost in all the discussion of money, jobs, and potential environmental issues with pipelines is the potential long-term benefit to communities near the line.
This piece discusses the possibility of using gas from the Mackenzie Gas Line to power and/or heat communities along its alignment. This is a huge benefit; it's a reliable, clean (cleaner than diesel, certainly), and relatively cheap heating source. The CBC piece doesn't discuss this, but power can easily be part of the equation, too, when cogeneration power projects are built in conjunction with compressor stations.
Of course, this discussion applies to the Alaska Highway gasline as well, with implications up and down the highway. I'm envisioning Beaver Creek with power and gas from the line, and the cost of living and working in Whitehorse could drop dramatically.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
...and the show goes on...
CBC News - North - Mackenzie pipeline hearings set for April
This, of course, is a matter of form; we've known for years that the JRP decision would be followed by a final round of hearings by the National Energy Board. This round will allow for some "final arguments", and will ultimately approve or deny the project.
The NEB hearings are not a rubber-stamp, nor are they meant to be as comprehensive as the near-4-year Joint Review Panel hearings. They are meant to be a final stage for representatives of major stakeholders to promote their various points of view for the NEB's consideration.
These hearings will finish on time, and their report will be on time. Nothing to worry about here.
This, of course, is a matter of form; we've known for years that the JRP decision would be followed by a final round of hearings by the National Energy Board. This round will allow for some "final arguments", and will ultimately approve or deny the project.
The NEB hearings are not a rubber-stamp, nor are they meant to be as comprehensive as the near-4-year Joint Review Panel hearings. They are meant to be a final stage for representatives of major stakeholders to promote their various points of view for the NEB's consideration.
These hearings will finish on time, and their report will be on time. Nothing to worry about here.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Apex Resources "very pleased" with JRP approval
Apex Resources Group Inc. (Pink Sheets APXR.PK) Announces That After Nine Years The Mackenzie... -- SALT LAKE CITY, Jan. 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall
Well, it's good to see SOMEBODY's happy. Apex Resources issued this release basically to gloat over their 3.745% stake in the Itiok I-27 property, saying they are "very pleased" that the Mackenzie line has been approved by the JRP...
Well, it's good to see SOMEBODY's happy. Apex Resources issued this release basically to gloat over their 3.745% stake in the Itiok I-27 property, saying they are "very pleased" that the Mackenzie line has been approved by the JRP...
Friday, January 1, 2010
Well, it was nice while it lasted...
Swords already drawn over Mackenzie report - The Globe and Mail
The ink isn't even dry over the JRP report (figuratively speaking, of course... since it was released on the Internet I should maybe say the electrons are not yet discharged?), and there is apparently already discord among other producer groups. This piece from The Globe and Mail suggests that if the feds are to provide support this line, that they may have a few questions to answer first. Producer groups in Alberta may apparently object to a supply of gas from the Mackenzie Delta if the federal government provides any degree of support. Alberta supplies have declined in recent years, and a new supply from northern Canada may do some degree of damage to what is left of the market.
I haven't editorialized much over the run of this blog to this point, but sometimes one has to draw a line: it's the height of hypocrisy for Alberta gas producers to object to this project. Back in the 1950s it became clear that natural gas was plentiful in Alberta, and that there were some significant challenges in bringing it to market. The (Social Credit) government of the day decided to support this new industry with a huge infrastructure investment, namely the Alberta Gas Trunk Line. This investment brought huge amounts of gas to market. And, yes, the producers paid for this investment over time, to the point where the Alberta government was able to successfully spin off this investment to the private sector, but this investment was initially made when government was the only major player able to provide it.
The basin that has provided so much wealth to the natural gas producers of Alberta is being drawn down, and the time is coming to find new supplies. Producers in the Mackenzie Delta have been waiting to sell this gas for decades now, and their time has come.
It's not as if Alberta receives no benefit from Mackenzie Delta gas; it will still require transport on Alberta pipelines, corporations based in Alberta will provide much of the development and personnel for the project, and--most importantly--liquids from this gas will provide feedstock for Alberta's petrochemical plants. Plants like the Novacor Chemicals ethylene plant near Red Deer that is one of the biggest plastics producers in the world.
It's not to say that this project isn't open to criticism, but to call federal participation somehow discriminitory against Alberta producers is kind of two-faced, if you ask me.
The ink isn't even dry over the JRP report (figuratively speaking, of course... since it was released on the Internet I should maybe say the electrons are not yet discharged?), and there is apparently already discord among other producer groups. This piece from The Globe and Mail suggests that if the feds are to provide support this line, that they may have a few questions to answer first. Producer groups in Alberta may apparently object to a supply of gas from the Mackenzie Delta if the federal government provides any degree of support. Alberta supplies have declined in recent years, and a new supply from northern Canada may do some degree of damage to what is left of the market.
I haven't editorialized much over the run of this blog to this point, but sometimes one has to draw a line: it's the height of hypocrisy for Alberta gas producers to object to this project. Back in the 1950s it became clear that natural gas was plentiful in Alberta, and that there were some significant challenges in bringing it to market. The (Social Credit) government of the day decided to support this new industry with a huge infrastructure investment, namely the Alberta Gas Trunk Line. This investment brought huge amounts of gas to market. And, yes, the producers paid for this investment over time, to the point where the Alberta government was able to successfully spin off this investment to the private sector, but this investment was initially made when government was the only major player able to provide it.
The basin that has provided so much wealth to the natural gas producers of Alberta is being drawn down, and the time is coming to find new supplies. Producers in the Mackenzie Delta have been waiting to sell this gas for decades now, and their time has come.
It's not as if Alberta receives no benefit from Mackenzie Delta gas; it will still require transport on Alberta pipelines, corporations based in Alberta will provide much of the development and personnel for the project, and--most importantly--liquids from this gas will provide feedstock for Alberta's petrochemical plants. Plants like the Novacor Chemicals ethylene plant near Red Deer that is one of the biggest plastics producers in the world.
It's not to say that this project isn't open to criticism, but to call federal participation somehow discriminitory against Alberta producers is kind of two-faced, if you ask me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)