TransCant-ada....it is.

I guess if they'd ever actually shown real economic analysis then you might have a point. The state folks showed their numbers and the Producers just said "that's wrong". Well, funny thing about numbers is, you have to argue numbers with numbers, not with emotional outbursts and not-so-glittering generalities. Maybe this is the year the Producers actually start talking about numbers and stop generalizing about what might or might not be the correct economic assumptions. Maybe this is the year Larry Finkelstein beats "the Stomach" in the hotdog eating contest. Maybe this is the year when Lucy really keeps holding the football until Charlie Brown kicks it. Maybe this is the year that the Producers really do build the pipeline.

Andrew's Response:

And maybe this year lawmakers will realize that throwing away $500 million while getting married to a company that has about as much chance of pulling this off as I do pitching for the Red Sox....isn't in Alaska's best interest.

By the way...you work for the administration. Why is it that during the press conference when Commissioner Galvin went on and on about how profitable this project was and then was asked to provide specifics he couldn't?

They couldn't even give a straight answer of how much gas was going to be available to ship. Rutherford said 3.5 bcf, then in an interview with the Calgary Herald, Palmer said 4.5 bcf.

And you honestly expect any gas producer to take this seriously. Your crew has been hashing over this proposal for almost five month and they still can't answer any questions.

Oh yeah and Pt. Thomson....that was simply amazing.

I've spent the morning reviewing the transcript from the press conference...................I need a drink.

This is from KTUU's website quoting Commissioner Irwin: "We have will have real numbers, real economics to understand and let me tell you, this is an incredibly economic project," he said. Mr. Friedman, can you inform us which is correct? Is it "we have" or "will have" real numbers? There's a big difference between those two, since the word "will" in this case refers to the future. So do we not yet have those numbers to determine if this is a sound economic project? Did he intentionally or unintentionally stumble over his own words? I'm surprised no one questioned him on this blunder, though it seems the Palin administration has a low tolerance level for questioning. Andrew, instead of spending money on liquor you would be better off going to Vegas and blowing it there. At least then you'll have a better understanding of what the Palin administration is about to do.

if your premise is that the administration is just dumb and doesn't know anything about the project or the TC proposal, i think you might be making a mistake. have your drink and relax. there are capable "can do" people involved.

Andrew's Response:

Let's see....granting an exclusive contract and $500 million to a company that said two things on Thursday that every Alaskan shoud hear:

One, Palmer said he had no idea where the gas would come from to fill the pipeline. "Of course we are not the entity that knows the deliverability of Prudhoe Bay and the deliverability of other basins. That is something the producers know, and something the state knows."

Two, Palmer was quoted in the Calgary Herald "the project will not get to the financing and construction stage without shipping commitments from the largest reserve owners and, failing that, without support for a bridge shipper concept that TransCanada has approached Washington about. Such a concept would see governments guarantee shipper commitments early on, he said."

So they have no idea where the gas is coming from that will fill the pipeline and they can't finance and build the line without getting long term commitments for the gas or U.S. txpayers to cover their risk.

My friend, there isn't enough liquor in the state to make anyone who has watched this assanine process over the last year relax.

Linus, The Caps Lock key is located just to the left of your pinky finger. If you read Andrew's blog regularly you will find that the significant majority of his readers are highly educated. It's obvious in the writing styles of his commenters. That is why yours stands out like a sore thumb. If you are going to imply an intelligent person (Andrew) is making a mistake, you should represent yourself as an intelligent person, otherwise your comment is just comedic fodder for the rest of us. This isn't the ADN blogs. Please inform us who the administration's "can do" people are. The ones proposing a free money entitlement program aka energy plan?

guess i'm not as smart as you Halcronies. i didn't even understand what your point was. i've visited this blog a few times. "a significant majority" here would be about two. it doesn't take many brain cells to find consensus in an echo chamber. doesn't produce workable ideas either. no biggie, enjoy your visit to the land of "it'll never work". careful not to stay too long, extended exposure can be harmful to your ability to think freely.

Andrew's Response:

And this represents functioning brain cells? (From tomorrow's blog)

Then Palin said something that highlighted the absolute lack of logic in this entire AGIA exercise.

"When they (producers) see the commitments to actually construct the line, there is no reason for them to not fulfill the mandates of their shareholders, and that is to boost their bottom-line", Palin said.

When the producers see the commitments to actually construct the line; what commitments is Palin talking about?

Those commitments won't exist until the producers make them.

The honest statement for Palin to make would have been "When the producers make the commitments to actually construct the line". As we stated earlier, TC has already admitted that until gas commitments come from the producers, they can't construct the line.

Is anybody out there actually listening to this administration's nonsense?

Charles Schultz would be offended by your use of one of his characters to represent a numskull like yourself. Yes, you answered your own question, you aren't as smart as the average Halcro reader nor your namesake. And I believe Halcro has had over a million hits to his blog; perhaps you have trouble counting above two? Sorry little boy, you're out of your league here. Perhaps you should move out of your parents' basement and get a job, like the rest of us who have done rather well for ourselves that way.

The fiscal terms should be tied down for the same period that a shipper has to committ to.

Where is Exxon in all of this? Do they join CP and BP in a few weeks on "Denali"? Or never? As for Pt. Thomson.........if you start either TransCanada or Denali with just Prudhoe Bay gas (some 28 TCF) and that produces 4.5 BCFD for 16 years and THEN the Pt. Thomson gas is needed after the oil and solids are removed, why doesn't that work out just fine? And not to say how much more "new" gas might be found in those 16 years?

Andrew's Response:

So you honestly believe AOGCC is going to let 4.5 bcf a day out of Prudhoe Bay in just nine years at the same time oil production has dropped like a rock? 

And didn't Exxon's latest POD promise to start producing liquids by 2014...but was rejected by Irwin?

Also, if you're basing the financing the largest oil & gas project in the world on gas that "might be found in 16 years", you're not getting financing.  

You just made the objective case why the TransCanada or Denali 4.5 bcfd projects will NEVER happen. Not enough gas for ANY financing. Both need 50 TCF. So at 34 TCF today.......someone better start drilling fast. To find that missing 16TCF. But wait...now we are told they can't have Pt. Thompson gas any time soon either. There goes another 8 TCF. Now they are both 24 TCF short. What is your solution to these facts?

Andrew's Response:

The first thing is to establish certainty with regards to gas reserves that are known which starts with allowing Exxon to begin work at Pt. Thompson.

The second thing is to actually start making real progress by at least beginning to engage the producers on fiscal certainty terms. It's getting quite tiresome for Palin to keep dredging up the past Murkowski agreement saying fiscal certainty will cost us $10 billion. She's wrong and the point is irrelevant for today's situation. That was then this is now.

This will send a signal to the marketplace that the current administration is committed to a pipeline rather than committed to simply trying to force a project into being they cannot.

I agree with the assertion that the fastest way to stimulate gas exploration on the North Slope is to have an understanding on the pipeline agreement, but currently there not only is there no understanding but they very well could be locking this state up for ten years with a partner that can't pull off the deal.

I know where you're going with this...LNG appears the best option. If so, you better take that argument back to Palin and her team because they just threw it out the window.

If the Murkowski plan was figured to cost the State $10 billion by building the pipeline, how much does the Palin plan cost the State by not building the pipeline? I'm a newcomer to this so I didn't follow the Murkowski plan and don't know how accurate the $10 billion is. If it's like the State's economics shown last year using Enron-style economic principles then I really doubt it would cost that much. I think the Palin plan even impacts oil production because of economy of scale in selling both gas and oil. As total revenue from a region drops enough there is no incentive for a producer to remain in that region. Certainly AGIA has already cost time by delaying the pipeline and if the legislature approves it the cost to Alaska will increase greatly.

Or is it that you have and you didn't get the answer you were looking for? If the latter is true, I feel your pain. I too have emailed the Governor's office and received the usual tag line, "Thank you for your feedback." No real answers, just feel good responses. Of course the administration is proposing a preposterous energy plan to ease your pain and make you forget your woes. "Don't question me, I just gave you free money. Go play nicely."