Project Pulse: Flatlined

 

The latest Alaska Pipeline Project's Pre-Filing Status Report for 2ed Quarter 2013 is a one pager that shows less progress than the last no-progress report (LINK TO FERC ELibrary).

Here's the content of the report:

• Open Season:  Notice was provided to the Commission on May 3, 2012 that the first binding Open Season was terminated as of that date. 
• Public Outreach: A Stakeholder Engagement Plan was filed with the FERC on April 5, 2010. No engagement has occurred in the past quarter. 
• Pipeline Right-of-Way and Engineering: Pipeline engineering and technology development work initiated to date has been completed and documented.
• Gas Treatment Plant (GTP): Engineering deliverables have been archived for potential future use.
• Environmental Planning and Permitting: No Environmental planning or permitting work has been conducted in the past quarter, although invoices for 2012 work continue to be processed.
• Project Meetings: The project had no additional contact with federal, state, and local agencies that have regulatory approval or other interests regarding the Project in 2Q2013. 
• Project Activity in Canada:FERC requested an update of Project activities in Canada in these activity reports. Completed remaining field program work and permit requirements with federal and territorial and provincial governments.

Aside from antek no one seems to be agitated by this de facto termination of the project. According to some observers it's not time to blow down the North Slope gas  If it's not time to blow down the gas why does Alaska continue to burn AGIA money?

Here's a look at the AGIA funds expended as of the January 2013 report:

 

If the Quarterly FERC report is an accurate indication of the project health why do Alaskans continue to shovel money at it?

Shell Canada LNG Export License Application

Since the Alaska Gas Pipeline and LNG plant plans are in yawn mode, take a look at the Export License Application filed by LNG Canada Development Inc., (Shell Canada, Korea Gas, Mitsubishi, and PetroChina) (LINK).

The annual maximum stated in the application is 1180 BCF, or 3.2 BCF/D which is about the same as the various pipeline options proposed for Alaska.

Section 4.4 of Appendix D (Ziff Energy) addresses Alaska Gas projects in very uncertain terms:

The LNG Option is being explored more thoroughly at time of writing. Project estimates for a 3 Bcf/d pipeline to Valdez are in the order of $20-26 Billion. Costs and economics of transporting and liquefying Alaska production will be dependent on many factors including final size and nature of facility and related pipeline, and are unknown at time of writing.

Section 6.3 foresees the possibility of future "Northern Gas"

Northern Gas (Alaska/Mackenzie Delta): could flow beginning in 2025 at the earliest and, assuming favourable economic conditions, could expand up to 7% of North American supply in
2045. Although discussions for a liquefaction facility and pipeline to Valdez, Alaska are at a preliminary stage, these could impact the supply of Northern gas to North America, if economics were favourable to LNG exports. If Northern Gas is transported to Western Canada, the pipelines would be the costliest component of each project, while another $8 Billion would be needed for Mackenzie field development. Once they are built, the pipelines will have a low variable cost and will continue to flow. Expansion projects (compression) will have low incremental cost and will be likely economic.

 Once again we are in hold mode waiting for 30 July Alaska LNG progress report.

Northern Pipelines - On Hold

Low gas prices can't support Arctic gas pipelines:

First the Mackenzie Pipeline (Calgary Herald link) and quote:

CALGARY - Partners in the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline have put the $16.2-billion project on hold, slashing budgets and eliminating staff in response to continued poor price outlooks and lack of commercial support.
Imperial Oil, the lead producer in the project with a 34 per cent interest, will close offices in Norman Wells and Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, this year, and has reduced the size of its office in Inuvik, N.W.T., spokesman Jon Harding said Thursday.
Cheap shale gas that pulled down prices, and cost escalations played into the partners' decision to cut capital on the pipeline project, he said

Back in Alaska pipeline company TransCanada has asked permission to curtail work on the eastern part of the Alaska Gas Pipeline (LINK) and quote:

TransCanada has asked the commissioners of Natural Resources and Revenue to allow it to "curtail" its work on a line that would run from Alaska's North Slope into Alberta, Canada, to focus on a liquefied natural gas project, said Tony Palmer, the company's vice president for major projects development. TransCanada's piece of that project would be the pipeline.

So now there is one project with two probable phases. Alaska LNG pipeline Phase 1 (condensate to TAPS and gas Prudhoe Bay) then Phase 2 (Gas to tidewater + LNG plant).  Lots of permutations and iterations along the way, but many options are now off the table.  Expect LNG for Japan, Korea and China in about a decade.

Reaction to Point Thomson Settlement

Maybe it's a case of what was said doesn't equal what people heard.  Fairbanks News Miner columnist Dermot Cole heard the part about no commitments (LINK).  The Anchorage Daily News heard (correctly) that Alaska has a deal to develop Point Thomson Gas (LINK) . The Wall Street Journal heard that "Alaska, Gas Firms Clear Way For Pipeline" And many media outletS proclaimed that Alaska and Exxon have agreed to build an LNG plant "Exxon seals deal with Alaska to develop $26b LNG plant".

If you want to know that facts I suggest you look at the documents on the Alaska DNR website (LINK).

What you will find is that one of three alternative or combinations of alternatives will play out over time:

Alternative A - Major Gas Sale : Gas to a pipeline and liquids to TAPS.  The clock is ticking to get this alternative sanctioned by 2016.  The window closes in 2019 when the producers must choose Alternative B or Alternative C.

Alternative B: Increase cycling and produce more liquids for TAPS.  Producers must do this or start losing leases.

Alternative C: Gas to Prudhoe Bay, Condensate to TAPS.   The gas flow to TAPS "Significantly increases TAPS throughput" This alternative also provides gas for in-state use.

None of these options involve a guarantee from the producers. The stated goal of the agreement is "A primary goal of this settlement is to incentivize commercialization of North Slope gas/Major Gas Sale (MGS)"

Looking at these options you can see it's a bit over the top to claim a LNG plant is in the works anytime soon. Possible - maybe, probable no. On the other hand the State and the Producers have covered all the bases, and they have done so in away that allows development of Point Thomson in a way that can boost Prudhoe Bay production in the short term and develop a gas export solution later (i.e. Alternative C first followed by Alternative A).  Alternative B looks like the worst case scenario unless you count Alternative "D" Point Thomson abandoned.

Those are the facts, but what about perceptions?  The markets are focused on the potential of Alaskan LNG entering the global mix.  Alaska's competitors will need to pencil that volume into the mix.  Alaska's potential customers can now step up and start negotiating deals.

Any of these outcomes equal revenue and jobs - Good things for Alaska.

Point Thomsom Settlement Agreement

The full text of the Settlement Agreement is at the DNR website (LINK).  Notice the EOR role of Point Thomson gas.  That seems to be the one of the sure things of the agreement.   EOR helps fill TAPS which is always a good thing.  The agreement also leads to commercialization of gas for sale or a large scale cycling project - either way Point Thomson starts cranking out revenue.  I'm still reading the whole thing, but so far it looks like Alaska is on the road to some large projects.

Here are some key parts:


1.6 This Agreement sets forth the WIOs’ commitment to produce natural gas condensate liquids (“condensate”) from the Point Thomson Reservoir for delivery into theTransAlaska Pipeline System (“TAPS”). The WIOs have committed to construct anInitial Production System (“IPS”) which is to be completed by the end of the 2015-2016 winter season. The IPS facility is being designed to produce and re-inject (cycle) 200 million cubic feet per day of gas and to produce approximately 10,000 barrels per day of condensate. In addition, a liquid hydrocarbon pipeline is being designed that can transport approximately 70,000 barrels per day from Point Thomson to an existing pipeline interconnection at the Badami field, which will provide for final delivery of Point Thomson liquid hydrocarbons into TAPS. Operation and production from the IPS will provide data and information to assist in evaluation of additional development plans, including potential increased gas and condensate production from Point Thomson, and plans for the delivery of Point Thomson gas into a Major Gas Sale pipeline project.

1.7 In parallel with the work on the IPS, Parties and/or their affiliates to this Agreement will, upon execution of this Agreement, undertake work for commercialization of North Slope gas. This work will build on ongoing gas commercialization efforts. If a Major Gas Sale is Sanctioned prior to year-end 2016, the WIOs will begin work on a Point Thomson project associated with that Major Gas Sale. However, if a Major Gas Sale has not been Sanctioned by June of 2016, the WIOs have committed to begin engineering of a Point Thomson Expansion Project. An expanded cycling project would result in additional condensate production, totaling approximately 20,000 to 30,000 barrels per day into TAPS, depending on the level of expansion. Alternatively, a project to deliver Point Thomson gas to Prudhoe Bay for injection would significantly increase the rate of condensate production at Point Thomson, serve as a pre-investment for a Major Gas Sale project, and essentially complete installation of the Point Thomson wells and facilities required for a Major Gas Sale. In addition, this option would materially increase production at Prudhoe Bay, and result in enhanced recovery at Prudhoe Bay.

1.8 The Agreement further establishes terms and conditions to facilitate development and provide benefits to the State of Alaska. Certain acreage within the Point Thomson Unit is secured when specified work activities are completed (e.g., the IPS is completed and producing) and key commitments or decisions are made (e.g., a Major Gas Sale is Sanctioned or WIOs Commit to a Point Thomson gas development / Prudhoe Bay enhanced oil recovery project or an IPS gas cycling expansion project). Likewise, the Agreement provides for the automatic release of certain acreage to the State if the IPS is not completed or if certain key commitments or decisions are not made (e.g., a Major Gas Sale is not Sanctioned or WIOs do not Commit to a Point Thomson gas development / Prudhoe Bay enhanced oil recovery project or an IPS gas cycling
expansion project). Depending upon the work activities that occur, the Point Thomson Unit will remain in effect or may terminate.

2.13 “Initial Production System” or “IPS” means the gas cycling facilities designed with capacity to produce and re-inject (cycle) 200 million cubic feet of gas per day utilizing reciprocal compression and with the objective of a minimum of 10,000 barrels per day of condensate for delivery into the TransAlaska Pipeline System (“TAPS”).

2.16 “Major Gas Sale” or “MGS” means a large-scale pipeline project having a design throughput of more than 500 million cubic feet of gas per day that results in delivery of gas off the North Slope of Alaska.

2.21 “Point Thomson Gas Development / Prudhoe Bay Enhanced Recovery Project” means a project to deliver Point Thomson gas to Prudhoe Bay for injection that would significantly increase the rate of condensate production at Point Thomson into TAPS, serve as a pre-investment for a Major Gas Sale, essentially complete installation of the Point Thomson wells and facilities required for a Major Gas Sale, and allow for continued efforts towards, and positions Point Thomson gas for, a Major Gas Sale. In addition, this project would materially increase oil production at Prudhoe Bay into TAPS and result in substantial enhanced recovery at Prudhoe Bay. A Point Thomson Gas Development / Prudhoe Bay Enhanced Recovery Project would result in
production and recovery of liquids from Point Thomson and Prudhoe Bay that would be greater than production and recovery of liquids from Point Thomson from an IPS Gas Cycling Expansion Project of a minimum of an additional 20,000 barrels per day. Before Project Start-up required approvals from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission must be obtained.
The project would consist of:
(i) a newly constructed gas pipeline from Point Thomson to Prudhoe Bay with the capacity to transport significant volumes of Point Thomson gas in an amount that would position Point Thomson gas for a Major Gas Sale, for injection for:
(a) use in repressuring, stimulation of production, and increasing ultimate
recovery of Prudhoe Bay oil; and (b) for ultimate availability for a Major Gas Sale; and
(ii) additional wells and facilities at Point Thomson to produce and process significant condensate production for delivery into TAPS through existing liquid hydrocarbon pipelines and pipelines constructed as part of the IPS Project. These facilities would also be used for a Major Gas Sale

New Focus On LNG "We Have Aligned"

Nothing to bank on but it sounds like the gas line project is morphing into an All Alaska line that will feed a tidewater LNG plant.  The first element of the plan is the Point Thomson settlement (LINK), and quote:

(Reuters) - The U.S. state of Alaska has reached a settlement with Exxon Mobil Corp and its partners to develop a huge, long-fallow oil and gas field, possibly paving the way for a $26 billion pipeline and an export plant for liquefied natural gas.
The settlement, which resolves a long-running lease dispute over the Point Thomson field about 60 miles (95 km) east of Prudhoe Bay, could allow for exports of liquefied natural gas via tanker to Asia and may boost Alaskan oil production after decades of decline.
In exchange for continued lease control, operator Exxon and partners BP and ConocoPhillips have agreed to build a pipeline from the field to deliver 70,000 barrels per day of liquids into the Trans Alaska Pipeline System.
The settlement also calls for the companies to produce 10,000 barrels per day of natural-gas condensates by the winter of 2015-16, state officials said.

That's a lot of condensate, I'm not sure where that flow will go but I'm looking forward to the project awards and jobs that will flow from this settlement.

The second element of this good news story is the possibility of an LNG export terminal (CEOs Letter to Gov. Sean Parnell). Quote from the letter:

Serious discussions between our  companies have taken place over  the past several months,
along wi th the Alaska Pipeline Project (APP) parties who are supporting the AGIA License.  We have aligned on a structured, stewardable and transparent approach wi th the aim to
commercialize Nor th Slope natural gas resources within an AGIA framework.  As a result of  the rapidly evolving global market, large-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports f rom southcentral Alaska will be assessed as an alternative to gas line exports through Alberta.  In addition to broadening market access, a south-central Alaska LNG approach could more closely align wi th in-state energy demand and needs.  We are now working together on the gas commercialization project concept selection, which would include an associated timeline and an assessment of  major  project  components including in-state pipeline routes and capacities, global LNG trends, and LNG tidewater  site locations, among others. 

This isn't the slam dunk project sanction announcement, but it's close to the Kumbaya moment many of us have looked for.  The language is parsed, but you would like to think that the CEOs of the North Slope producers are at least 80% certain of a project before they signed up to "assess" an Alaskan LNG project.

The current trend in lower 48 shale gas prices lead me to believe that Alaskan LNG export is the last hope of developing Alaska's natural gas.  Full development of Point Thomson makes little sense without a viable outlet for the gas.

One certain take away is that all three producers are on Team AGIA now with the "We have aligned" statement.  Nice job Governor, don't stop now.

Additional LINKS

(Washington Post/Bloomberg Link)
(Gov. Parnell Website Press Release - Pt. Thomson Resolved, Aligment on Gasline)
(Alaska DNR Point Thomson website)

Team Alaska - Missing

Japan continues to lobby American officials on the topic of LNG exports (Platt's Link).  Quote:

Japanese officials will meet with a US delegation headed by Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman later Tuesday to ask that Washington allow exports of LNG to Japan, the world's biggest importer of liquefied natural gas, a Japanese delegate said. 

Platts assessed its Japan/Korea marker Monday at $15.45/MMBtu for April, while its Northwest and Southwest European markers were assessed at $10.95 and $11.35, respectively, for April. In contrast, the NYMEX April gas futures contract settled at $2.269 Monday.

Where's all the Alaskan leadership?  Senators Murkowski and Begich, Governor Parnell, Representative Don Young  - where are you when LNG customers come knocking?  You would think a project to sell Alaskan LNG priced at $12 -$15 would motivate these elected leaders to weigh in and lend a hand, a photo op, a trade mission, something.  Instead they are missing and silent.  The LNG for Japan opportunity may be the last chance for decades.

AGIA Spending Report

The Alaska Department of Revenue and Department of Natural Resources submitted a report on expenditures on the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) (LINK).  The report includes details of spending to date and forecast of future spending.

Here's the simplified version:

What's absent from the report (1) The report indicates that no money has been spent to date on the LNG option, but tosses in $35,696,000 for LNG and other contingencies, and (2) There no real substance in terms of results. (3) There's no breakdown of spending East of Delta Junction, i.e. if the LNG option goes through how much AGIA spending was wasted?

The report does break out percentages spent in Alaska and Canada.  I estimate the Delta Junction to Canadian border spending equals about 8% so that 40% of AGIA spending can be tacked on to the cost of any LNG option.

Alaska Pipeline Project - FERC Filing

LINK to Alaska Pipeline Project draft resource report:

Three & One

Yesterday Alaska's Governor Sean Parnell met with the CEO's of ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips to talk about commercialization of North Slope gas, boosting Alaskan oil output and Point Thomson.(LINK to Governors press release), and the agenda:

It's not a kumbaya moment yet, but I'll give the Governor and the CEOs credit  for manning up and doing the adult thing, i.e. start talking about the issues that are stalling development of oil and gas in Alaska.  This group should talk more often.  Quote from the Governor:

“I appreciate the willingness of the chief executives to come to Alaska to discuss the important topic of commercializing North Slope gas,” Governor Parnell said. “For a gas project to advance, all three companies need to be aligned behind it. This meeting is an important step, but much work remains.”

Nice work Governor, don't let up.

2011 - Year of the Yawn

I had greater expectations for the Alaska Gas Pipeline in 2011. To recap -

1. The open season process was expected to yield announcements of precedent agreements for long term commitments to ship gas.  The agreements may or may not have been reached, but no public announcement was forthcoming.  Chances are any agreements reached are so heavily conditioned that they represent no commitment to do anything in the here and now. 
2. In 2011 I expected a viable shipper for a 7 MMTPA Valdez LNG plant to step forward.  What actually happened was that Governor Parnell voiced support for a tidewater LNG project. The Governor's comments had the unintended consequences of delaying submission of resource reports by the Alaska Pipeline Project (TransCanada and ExxonMobil).
3. 2011 Started with two Alaska Gas Pipeline projects - The APP (TransCanada & Exxon Mobil) working to the scope as defined by the Alaska Gas Inducement Act (AGIA) and The Denali Project (ConocoPhillips & BP).  I had an expectation that the projects would merge in 2011.  Instead Denali folded in May citing "open season efforts have not resulted in the customer commitments necessary to continue work on its Alaska North Slope gas pipeline project".  

What's next? - for starters spot Henry Hub gas closed the year at $2.97/MMBTU (see chart for 2011 natural gas prices).   That's astonishing and sobering to any proponent of an Alaskan Gas Pipeline.  Gas that cheap in December is partially due to a mild lower 48 winter but mainly a function of  the glut of shale gas. The 200 day average price is right at $4/MMBTU - essentially the low profit range to drill and produce a shale gas well.

In 2012 the North American gas markets will have little appetite for Alaskan Gas.  Billions will be spent to build Gulf of Mexico LNG export capacity and preliminary studies will be launched to look into the viability of at least one lower 48 Gas to Liquids (GTL) plant.  Anti-fracking stories will continue with little effect on the continued development of lower 48 shale gas resources. The annual average price of 2012 gas may fall within the $3.50 - $5.00/MMBTU range. No new nuclear power will come on line in 2012, but a few gas fired plants will come on line to replace aging coal plants.

Throughout 2012 Alaskans will come to grips with the increasing unattractiveness of Alaskan Gas.  The best comment this year came from Steve Kirchhoff, Vice President – Americas, ExxonMobil Gas and Power Marketing Company in a presentation to the Resource Development Council of Alaska in this video. In this presentation Kirchoff states that "You can't dabble at LNG"

Gas Off-Take Study Available on line

Gas Off-Take Study by engineering firm Black and Veatch is available on line (LINK).

Additional presentations are available on the Alaska Gas Pipeline Project Office website (LINK)

Best use of Shale Gas - Export it

Cheniere project moving forward to export lower 48 shale gas (LINK).

The cost: $5 Billion for two trains producing a total of 9 million tons per year.(LINK2)

You can use the unit rate to estimate the cost of an Alaskan LNG export plant.  The Cheniere volume is roughly 25% of the proposed Alaska gas line volume. Add "Alaska" factors and you find that $25 billion is need to build the plant that could export the full 4.5 BCFD of Alaska gas.  That's on top of the pipeline cost.

New Gas & New Jobs

The Alaska Dispatch has this article by Amanda Coyne on the release of the Point Thomson EIS (LINK)(Point Thomson EIS Link).

There's no point in developing Point Thomson unless you believe in a future Alaska gas pipeline.

Follow the money - a producer (ExxonMobil) is spending real money with an expectation of a real return on investment.

Real jobs are being created too.  Check out "Careers" at Fluor.  Recent job postings mention Point Thomson by name.

Even more LNG for Kitimat

While Alaska continues to jaw about gas lines and LNG (TIM BRADNER LINK) / (BILL WALKER LINK), the Canadians are all in.  For the second week in a row we have news about LNG projects at Kitimat (KITIMAT LINK).

Governor Parnell on Huckabee, and more.

Governor Parnell on Huckabee talking about taxes and drilling in Alaska, no mention of the gas pipeline:


Governor Parnell on Huckabee from Office of Governor Sean Parnell on Vimeo.

Also noticed this LNG video this week.



LNG: The Facts from Center for Liquefied Natural Gas on Vimeo.

LOL moment at the 3:58 min mark when the spokesman takes a gulp from a beaker of water cooled by LNG evaporation. Nice video, but imagine OUTBOUND LNG instead of inbound LNG.

In other news: Australia will become the Qatar of LNG. (LINK)  By 2020 Australian LNG exports could top 100 mtpa compared to 77 mtpa from Qatar.  For comparison, the volume of gas available from Alaska equals 35 mtpa in LNG.  A full scale Alaskan LNG export project seems unlikely, but Alaskan gas could supply North American markets if and when shale gas derived LNG is exported from the Gulf Coast.

This week Chevron moved forward with a $28B investment in the Western Australian Wheatstone 8.9 mtpa LNG project (LINK).

Japan Wants USA LNG

I wonder if LNG hawk Bill Walker is on a plane to sell his idea of Valdez LNG to the Japanese?  From Bloomberg (LINK):

Japan’s senior vice minister of trade and industry, Seishu Makino, asked U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu at a meeting yesterday in San Francisco to increase LNG exports, Akinobu Yoshikawa, deputy manager for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Division, told reporters today in Tokyo.

“I believe we gained the U.S.’s understanding to some extent,” said Yoshikawa. “We can’t buy LNG from the U.S. unless the Department of Energy approves LNG plant owners to export. There is one plant that recently won the approval and there are two others in progress.

Japan is a motivated buyer, a long term customer, they can make X120 pipe - where's the photos of the happy Alaskan trade delegation to Japan? Come on guys - time to get your head in the game.

The only good news in the story is that Gulf Coast LNG exports to Japan will sponge up cheap shale gas and improve to overall prospects for any North American gas project.

Larry Persily - "Don't Read the BLOGS!"

LOL Larry! At the 14:45 minute mark of "The Alaska Report September 2011" Federal Coordinator Larry Persily advises Senator Mark Begich "Don't read the blogs"

Come on Larry - I try to keep it factual and on topic.  Aside from that comment I enjoyed the interview.  Thanks Senator Begich, and thanks Larry.

Sasol GTL

Sasol has plans to pursue a Gas to Liquids (GTL) project on the Gulf Coast. (LINK).  Chesapeake has been saying GTL will sponge up the shale gas glut (LINK- see page 10).  Looks like they may be right.

Quote from the DownStream Today article:

Sasol Ltd. (SOL.JO, SSL), a chemical company long known for squeezing motor fuel out of coal, is now turning its sights on the glut of natural gas in the U.S.South Africa-based Sasol on Tuesday announced plans to build a plant, at a cost of as much as $10 billion, that would convert natural gas into diesel.

Sasol's board last week approved an 18-month feasibility study for the project, which would be constructed on land adjacent to Sasol's existing chemical facility in Louisiana.If given the final go-ahead, the plant would be the first in the U.S. to use so-called gas-to-liquids technology. Once seen as far-fetched and futuristic, the technology has gained traction in recent years as the discovery of gas supplies has outpaced that of oil.

 Anything that increases demand for lower 48 gas helps Alaska in the long run.  18 months seems like a long time for a study, but I still look forward to approval for projects like this.

Plethora of options

Tons of ideas out there, but still no buyers for Alaska gas. Here's links to pipeline related presentations submitted to the Senate Resources Committee this week :



Larry Persily, Federal Coordinator (LINK)

TransCanada (LINK)

Bill "Valdez LNG" Walker (LINK)

Malcolm Roberts (LINK)

Harold Heinze ANGDA (LINK)

David Gottstein (LINK)

AGDC, answers to 54 Wielechowski questions (LINK)

DNR Dan Sullivan, Gasline Update (LINK)

Dan "ASAP" Fauske (LINK)