This idea (and I use that term loosely) has been pushed for a long time, and is a disaster on so many levels. This was explicitly spelled out by Tom Berger himself 'back in the day' as a truly horrible idea. It is also illegal in Alaskan state law. The idea has not improved with age.
--M
'Over the top' pipeline could work for Alaska and Canada
COMPASS: Points of view from the community
By MICHAEL KENNY
Published: December 20th, 2007 06:44 AM
Although it pains me to admit it, Exxon and BP have the right concept after all. The "over the top" pipeline route between Alaska's North Slope and Canada's Mackenzie River Delta is the superior route for transporting natural gas and oil to the marketplace. From the global corporate perspective of cost, efficiency and environmental impact, it is nonsense to consider two major Arctic transportation corridors less than 400 miles apart. Also advocating that Alaska natural gas be shipped over the top, through the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline route, are many political leaders, industry experts and media in Canada.
Correct as they are in supporting the over-the-top route, they are as wrong as can be in the direction that oil and gas should flow. It is Canadian oil and gas that should be transported over the top to the well-established trans-Alaska pipeline transportation corridor.
Here's why. Our Canadian friends and neighbors have been trying for just as long as Alaskans to get their natural gas from the Arctic to market. Alaska got the jump on them in getting our oil pipeline built, but neither of us can get over the hump and get a gas line built. The Mackenzie Valley project is way over original cost estimates and the Canadian government doesn't seem interested in underwriting the $14 billion to get it started. Some Canadians think if Alaska's natural gas is available via the over-the-top route, it might help get their project under way.
Exxon/Imperial paid more than $600 million for an oil exploration block in the Beaufort. Their exploration, or others, will probably find commercial reservoirs of oil. Getting it to market through the Mackenzie Valley corridor will require new infrastructure and 800 miles of pipeline.
Is there enough demand and capital to have two parallel gas pipelines and two parallel oil pipelines? The cost of building two gas pipelines and infrastructure is reduced by more than 50 percent if only one gas line is built, sized large enough to accommodate Canadian gas, and placed in the existing trans-Alaska pipeline corridor. Savings of 100 percent will be achieved by utilizing Alaska's existing and recently reconfigured oil pipeline for Canadian oil. These are not trivial amounts of money. There may be savings of several tens of billions of dollars. And the amount of oil may bring our pipeline back to nearly full throughput.
There are many ardent advocates in Canada of a west-to-east over-the-top pipeline. It is doubtful that the shoe will be very comfortable on their other foot with transporting from east to west.
But Arctic warming is setting in motion huge political, environmental, industrial, ecological, scientific, cultural and resource development movements among northern nations. The rush is on to stake claims. Alaska is the spearpoint for the U.S. in the Arctic.
If Canada uses our trans-Alaska pipeline corridor for shipping Arctic oil and gas, it might help solve the current Beaufort Sea border dispute between us. For now, our interests are best met by advocating an over-the-top pipeline to use our existing infrastructure while working diligently with our Canadian neighbors in making it to our mutual benefit.
It's very difficult to understand how it's in Alaska's interest to transport our natural gas and very valuable natural gas liquids to inland Canada via either the over-the-top or Alaska Highway route. Getting gas to Chicago by either route is the longest of long shots. LNG is the future, and adding value with our natural gas liquids here in our state will brighten the future for all Alaskans.
