"We have an abundance of natural gas at Prudhoe. But we do not have the leadership and will to build an in-state gas pipeline for Alaska."
That was a statement on record made by a 43-year Alaska resident in 2009, during a special legislative committee hearing on energy in Kenai. Clearly, these issues are frustrating many Alaskans and have for some time.
Why don't we have affordable gas made available to Alaskans when we live right next to abundance? That's a common question. Putting aside the frequent divisive rhetoric, let's imagine as Alaskans a gas line that actually doesn't take an exorbitant amount to build; a line that uses the existing highway corridor and leaves a small footprint; a line that exists with the sole purpose of first bringing North Slope gas to Alaskans, and a line that doesn't require state subsidies. Pipe dream? We think not, but we are losing time.
We are still stuck in a debate over how and when to monetize ANS gas, and we are receiving mixed messages. The federal pipeline coordinator's office says that we must build the large line to provide for gas needs in the Lower 48. Really?
Looking next door, our Canadian neighbors have numerous projects proposed and planned, with already existing thousands of miles of pipeline -- and with the U.S. as its primary consumer. However, there are Canadians convinced that the U.S. will soon be self-sufficient, and will no longer be reliant on Canadian gas, and so are making plans for other export options -- to the Asian markets -- while seemingly ignoring Canada's own energy challenges. (Makes you wonder if the Trans-Canada line will ever be economically feasible.) The focus has now shifted for many companies from natural gas transport to Canadian LNG and GTL export.
Our Canadian neighbors are rapidly moving forward pursuing Asian exportation, as we can see by the two large proposed projects, Kitimat LNG and the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, even with environmentalist and First Nation resistance and NAFTA issues. How ironic it would be to have Canadian ships bypassing Alaska through the Dixon Entrance hauling LNG to export while we argue away in an unheated room about which one of our proposed projects is better.
Alaska has other big pipe dreams too, and also wants in on the Asia markets, but it does little good if we don't actually get gas to Valdez. Alaska could end up behind the eight ball if it doesn't get its own gas at least closer to where its own people are now. And that means first stop, Fairbanks.
Clearly the global and national economies weigh on the decisions, but surely we have all realized by now that the Lower 48 appears to be awash in shale and other natural gas sources. Common sense dictates we solve our own energy needs in Alaska before we attempt to contribute to solving national needs.
But how?
A pipeline that serves Alaska can be built by Alaskans for Alaskans with little or no state subsidies. A pipeline sized to match the utility value of ANS gas can be constructed without state subsidies, assuming that its 11 percent return on investment inspires the relatively small individual investments required for Alaskans to partake in its ownership and future earnings. The testimony given in Kenai is indicative of the potential interest: "Our family will pass on our PFD check to get private gas -- now."
Rather than give up a PFD, the average Alaskan would be better served having the opportunity to invest any portion of their PFD or other income into an Alaska pipeline that transports the gas they buy and use. It becomes a win-win situation. Imagine if the trans-Alaska pipeline (TAPS) had provided a similar investment opportunity for Alaskans how some of us might be doing today.
We need a small diameter pipeline to get affordable gas to Alaskans. We need to get started. From there, who knows? Maybe then we'd have the energy to ship our LNG to Asia.
Diane Benson is public relations director for Fairbanks Pipeline Co. and a former Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor and Congress.
By DIANE BENSON