Alaska South Central LNG (SCLNG) Project update.

Project update.  MAY 2013 (LINK) 

FEB 2013 (LINK)

Really?

Seriously, this is a "project progress report"?

LINK

The report reads like a project close out report - all done.

Northern Alliance

I didn’t see this coming. Looks like a crafty deal. Possible new source of capital for the Alaska gas line?  Coordinated development of the Arctic. Free market at work - gotta love it




Exxon-Mobil Rosneft Arctic Deal LINK

The $65,000,000,000 Question

Can we build a pipeline project that will make all of Alaska's natural gas dreams come true for $65 Billion?  Dermot Cole doesn't think much of the recent letter sent to Governor Parnell, he says the letter doesn't show much enthusiasm.  To a certain degree Mr. Cole is right.

The $65 Billion price tag is a reality check.  If Alaskan LNG is priced to compete in the global market the project may move forward.  I estimate the base price of Alaskan North Slope gas LNG at around $12/MMBTU before operation cost and taxes are added. At current oil prices, oil indexed LNG trades in the $16/MMBTU range.  The global LNG consumer community want to de-link LNG from crude oil or discount LNG from crude. According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Japan and Korea currently pay about $13.80/MMBTU for LNG - the highest rates in the world.

The reality check shows that there is no wiggle room for pricing in excessive profits or taxes.  The whole project is at the ragged edge of feasibility.

Having said that Alaskan LNG has huge benefits that few other projects offer:

• Short Stable Shipping lanes .  The shipping lanes between Alaska and Asia don't have a Strait of Hormuz to deal with.  Asian LNG buyers need the diversity of supply the Alaska LNG project offers.
• Political Stability.  LNG from second and third world sources is always at risk of political disruption, especially in the new world of tweeting community organizers.
• Jobs for Equity Partners. You don't hear much about this but a project of this size will generate a massive amount of commerce in the Asian countries that build modules and pipe for the project. It's possible that equity partners could spend 100% of their project cost within their own borders.
• Conventional Gas. I support shale gas development, but investing in a large, developed conventional gas resource is more predictable than investing in an undeveloped shale gas resource. 

Project alignment is good and it's good to get the scary reality check estimate out in the open. The Governor, Dan Sullivan and Senator Lisa Murkowski are all out in force saying the right things and engaging with potential LNG customers.

With a bit of luck, more will detail will develop and the project will move forward.

Golden Pass LNG

North Slope producer ExxonMobil holds a 30% position in Golden Pass Products LLC.  This week GPP announced their intent to move forward with a $10 billion LNG project at the Sabine Pass location.  The project will export an average of 2.0 BCFD of gas.

Obviously it's cheaper to build on the Gulf Coast rather than Alaska, but the cost and capacity data provide an insight into LNG project economics.

In Alaska producers have stranded gas.  Stranded gas has value as an energy source and as a means to maintain reservoir pressure.  At Golden Pass the problem is non producing stranded hardware.  The Golden Pass facility was built to receive imported LNG and sell that gas to the American market.  The shale gas revolution made import facilities like Golden Pass obsolete.  Gas from imported LNG can't compete with cheap domestically produced shale gas.

The Golden Pass export project investment equals about $14/MMBTU/yr export capacity.  ($10 Billion @2 BCFD capacity).  In comparison the Alaska Gas Pipeline Project plus LNG will cost about $40 Billion and export about 3 BCFD which equals about $37/MMBTU/yr export capacity.  By this measure the Alaskan project is over two and half times more expensive than a Gulf Coast stranded equipment project.

The big disadvantage to an Alaskan project is the pipeline required to move the gas to tidewater.  If the pipeline cost is eliminated from the calculation the Alaska Project would only cost 1.33 times the Golden Pass Project - a reflection of the cost of building in Alaska and the value of sunk assets at Sabine Pass.

Of course an Alaskan gas project has other benefits including affordable energy for (some) Alaskans and proximity to Asian LNG buyers.  At the end of the day these benefits will not tip the balance in favor of the Alaskan project.

The value of co-produced natural gas liquids (NGL) will promote Alaska project economics to a small degree, but not a significant amount, perhaps as little as $5 Billion discounted back to the project start date.  Helpful, but not a game changer.

Assuming a relative free market we can expect the low hanging fruit of Gulf Coast import terminals to be converted to export terminals fueled by cheap shale gas.  As more export facilities come on line the domestic price of gas can be expected to increase while abundance of supply puts downward pressure on the asking price of LNG.  The increased cost of feed stock and reduced revenue for products will tend to pinch out projects that move forward later rather than sooner.  Stir in a helping of anti free market regulation and the number of stranded equipment conversions may stay in the single digits.

Still standing by for good news in September, but I don't see a home team bounce in the project economics yet.

Losing Our Shirts on Natural Gas

So it's official - Exxon is not happy with dirt cheap natural gas (LINK):

On Wednesday Exxon Chief Executive Rex Tillerson broke from the previous company line that it wasn't being hurt by natural gas prices, admitting that the Irving, Texas-based firm is among those hurting from the price slump. 

"We are all losing our shirts today." Mr. Tillerson said in a talk before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "We're making no money. It's all in the red."

One Message: Alaskan LNG

At long last Alaskan leadership is on message with the same story: LNG.  Lower 48 shale gas killed the gas pipeline to Canada.  The pipeline is headed to a tidewater LNG plant.  We can still argue about the route, taxes, branch lines, straddle plants and natural gas liquids, but consider the main project objective settled.

On Wednesday Dept of Natural Resources Commissioner Dan Sullivan and Dept. of Revenue Commissioner Bryan Butcher approved TransCanada's Project Plan Amendment (PPA) which switches the gasline focus to commercialization of Alaskan gas a LNG for export (LINK to approval letter).

Meanwhile Senator Lisa Murkowski is in Japan talking Alaskan LNG (LINK).  DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan also pitches Alaskan LNG in Asia (Slides).  Of course Governor Parnell is on message with his support of the LNG project (LINK). Finally the North Slope producers are aligned (LINK).

Looks like the end of the beginning.

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)

Breakthrough around the corner?

Maybe, possibly, who knows.  I don't tend to get too excited anymore, but this story made the DrudgeReport, has a link to a Financial Times story on the Alaska Gas Pipeline.  (See today's Drudge Report for a link that works (LINK)

Here's a quote:

According to people close to the negotiations, the three companies and state authorities hope to reach agreement next week over a long-running lease dispute at Point Thomson, a large oil and gas field on Alaska’s North Slope.

A settlement would clear the way for the companies to hasten their commercial assessment of a large gas pipeline to Alaska’s southern coast, from where LNG could be shipped to China and other Asian countries. Sean Parnell, Alaska’s governor and a champion of the project, told the Financial Times he was “cautiously optimistic” that the plan would be able to move forward.

Maybe it will play out like they say. A Point Thomson settlement would help in terms of immediate employment opportunities so fingers crossed.  Hastening the gas pipeline may be a stretch.  "Hastening commercial assessment" doesn't sound like a project anytime soon.

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.

More Lower 48 LNG Exports

The idea of lower 48 LNG exports is becoming a reality. A few months back Cheniere start the trend. I made this prediction last November:

What's next? - I assume the Cheniere business model is a good one and similar import terminals with the right ingredients will follow suit.  See page 38 of the Cheniere presentation (LINK) for plant volumes. 

This week the Department of Energy authorized Sempra to export LNG from the Cameron Parish Site (LINK), and quote:

HOUSTON -(MarketWatch)- The U.S. Department of Energy said Friday it has authorized Cameron LNG to export liquefied natural gas, opening the door wider for U.S. natural gas companies to send their bounty overseas.
The export permit is only the third awarded in the U.S. It allows Cameron, a wholly-owned subsidiary of California-based natural gas distributor and marketer Sempra Energy, to ship up to 1.7 billion cubic feet a day of LNG from its in Cameron Parish, La., facility to countries possessing free-trade agreements with the U.S. 

Here's a list of existing North American LNG import terminals with my analysis of proximity to shale gas (including the pipeline infrastructure to move the shale gas) Note, this table does not include the 2.8 BCFD proposed Gulf Coast LNG Terminal, Brownsville Texas:

The plan to convert LNG import terminals into an export terminals make sense for terminals located near shale gas fields and adequate pipelines. By this analysis there's good potential for four more new export terminals.  Two of those potential sites are controlled in part by Alaskan North Slope producers. I say this to illustrate the business decision before the producers: Build liquefaction  units at existing lower 48 import facilities -or- build a North Slope gas treatment plant, a $20 billion pipeline to Valdez, and a liquefaction at Valdez.  Obviously the Alaska LNG option is pointless unless North Slope gas is priced at a deep discount to Henry Hub.  How deep?  To defer the cost of $20 billion gas line to Valdez North Slope gas needs to sale for $1.50/MMBTU less than Henry Hub (based on a discount cash flow over 20 years at 5%).  

Now this isn't all bad news.  In the best case scenario the four import terminal near shale gas listed above are all converted to LNG export pushing the Henry Hub price of gas up into the $5 or $6/MMBTU range.  At that point in time Alaskan gas will not need to compete with the low capital cost of import facility conversion and the deep discount will not be a factor.  In the mean time it's important to remember the North Slope producers can sell LNG from lower 48 import terminals for less cost compared to building an pipeline to Valdez. 

Prediction - expect more announcements of lower 48 LNG import facility conversion to export.

For more information on the effects of LNG export see the  EIA report (LINK), and

Brookings Institution study on exporting LNG from the United States (LINK)

Alaska Pipeline Project - FERC Filing

LINK to Alaska Pipeline Project draft resource report:

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"

Natural Gas - Growth, Growth, Growth

November 16, 2011  ExxonMobil Presentation Alaska Resource Development Council (LINK)

Quote from page 8:

Alaska North Slope Gas is competing in a growing & increasingly global  marketplace
• Resource development underpins economic growth for State
• Complexity of Alaska gas development dictates need for on-going stakeholder alignment
• Alignment with the State of Alaska
• Establish predictable and durable fiscal terms so an investment of this magnitude can be made
• Build on foundation of the Alaska Pipeline Project and AGIA framework
• Alignment among Producers
• Support from ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and BP essential
• ExxonMobil is poised to work with all key stakeholders to shape the next generation of North Slope development

LINK to Video of the presentation.

All true, but no Kumbaya moment yet.

Listening to the presentation I heard a hint of buy in for Alaskan LNG, or at least a pitch that ExxonMobil has what it takes to succeed at an Alaskan LNG project.

Gas to Gasoline?

Petroleum News carried additional details (LINK) on Janus Methanol chairman Deo van Wijk's ideas for un-stranding Alaska's natural gas. The idea is called "MTG" or Methanol to Gasoline. Given the dismal prospects of the umpteen dozen proposed gas lines maybe this idea is worth a second and even a third look.

In a nutshell van Wijk's concept is to convert Alaska's natural gas into valuable liquids and batch the liquids to market via the existing TAPS oil pipeline to Valdez and then on to markets where the material will trade as gasoline.

How it works - Cleaned up natural gas is converted to Syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen), Syngas is converted to Methanol (MeOH) and Methanol is converted to liquids, i.e. gasoline via a process owned by Exxon.

Quote from the Petroleum News article:

Using ballpark estimates of development costs on the North Slope, assuming for example a more than doubling of costs compared with a region such as the U.S. Gulf Coast, Van Wijk has estimated a $7.7 billion price tag for an initial two-train plant. Assuming a 20 percent return on investment over a 15-year period and a tax rate of 35 percent, gasoline could viably be sold at a price of $1.583 per gallon at a natural gas price of $2 per thousand cubic feet, Van Wijk said. The viable gasoline price rises with increasing natural gas prices, with the gasoline price reaching $3.458 at a natural gas price of $10 per thousand cubic feet, he said.

Van Wijk estimates the initial two train unit will produce 63,000 bbls per day of low sulfur low benzene gasoline. The economics, as stated look good, although where are North Slope gas producers going to get $10/MMBTU for their gas? (LINK TO VAN WIJK SLIDES)

The price of North Slope gas is really an imaginary number without other viable outlets. I figure that gas input to the facility should be at cost with gas producers compensated and tax assessed on the product stream ex-Valdez.

Van Wijk didn't indicate if the cost of a train includes gas pretreatment so let's tack on some capital cost for other items, say $1.3B for offsite utilities (gas treatment) , tankage at Valdez and assorted items along the pipeline. At $9B per two trains the project should still work.

What's good about this idea:

1) It converts Alaska's gas into revenue.

2) It's incremental, initial cost are more easily financed.

3) It fills the pipeline, extending the life of the pipeline.

4) It puts Exxon in the game as the technology licensing participant.

5) Fewer permits required, fewer jurisdictions.

6) It's an "All Alaska" option.

7) The incremental approach depressurizes the North Slope more gradually than a full size gas pipeline, i.e. it extends some oil field production.

8) There are actual buyers for the product.

Here's what people will hate about this idea:

1) No gas for Alaskans - Better start thinking propane

2) $500 Million for AGIA down the drain, maybe $1.5 Billion if damages are paid to TransCanada. Maybe the viability of MTG will force the discussion of AGIA feasibility.

Conclusion - I say why not - Van Wijk's team should press on and develop a full cost estimate. Clean up the concept and minimize capital installed on the North Slope. Get a proof of concept unit going on the Gulf Coast and iron out the arctic constructability issues.

Exxon X120 Piple Welding

One way to improve the economics of a remote gas pipeline is to use stronger steel.

Here's a press release from Exxon on X12o pipe welding. (LINK).

Because I'm an optimist I read "Alaska Gas Pipeline" into this portion ofthe press release:

X120 ultra high-strength linepipe was jointly developed by ExxonMobil’s Upstream Research Company and Nippon Steel. X120 linepipe is 50 percent stronger than the strongest linepipe steel (X80) commonly used in gas transmission pipelines and is a cost effective and safe method of transporting natural gas from remote regions to urban customers using high-pressure, large-diameter pipelines.

Natural gas demand is forecast to grow 60 percent globally in the next 20 years. Many new gas resources required to meet this demand are in remote areas and will require cost-effective transportation options before they can be commercialized. The use of X120 linepipe could substantially improve the economics of long-distance pipelines used in the development of remote gas resources.