The Alaska Gasline Development Corp. board has directed staff to provide cost estimates on two larger sizes for the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline.
The board, with Walker administration commissioners and three new members appointed by the governor, met March 12 and its first resolution was the cost estimate for ASAP alternatives handling larger volumes of gas.
The House Resources Committee heard a description of the proposed work at a March 13 meeting.
AGDC had developed an ASAP plan for moving 500 million cubic feet per day of North Slope natural gas, aimed at in-state use and designed as a backup should a larger project fail to move forward. The 500 million was a limitation imposed under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act and was terminated by an agreement between the state and TransCanada after last year’s passage of Senate Bill 138, which made the state an equity partner with North Slope natural gas producers in a liquefied natural gas project. AGDC is responsible for the in-state ASAP line, and for the state’s participation in the LNG portion of AKLNG and has data sharing agreements with AKLNG.
In response to the governor’s stated preference for enlarging ASAP to compete with AKLNG, House leadership introduced House Bill 132 which would restrict a line in competition with AKLNG.
AGDC resolution
The resolution passed by the AGDC board March 12 directs AGDC staff “to prepare a schedule and cost estimate for preparation of a class 3 estimate for the ASAP project” under two additional assumptions: 36-inch diameter pipe using American National Standards Institute class 600 pipe and 36-inch diameter pipe using ANSI class 900 pipe.
AGDC President Dan Fauske and Frank Richards, vice president for engineering and program management, told House Resources that ANSI 600 pipe would allow the line to move 1.4-1.6 billion cubic feet per day, while the ANSI 900 pipe would provide for 2.4-2.6 bcf per day.
Fauske said what AGDC staff is doing is getting numbers together, and those numbers could end up with a third alternative. Right now, he said, the attempt is to determine if they can redesign and stay within existing funding levels.
Two options
A comparison chart prepared by AGDC shows the current 0.5 bcf per day proposal compared to 1.4 bcf and 2.4 bcf alternatives.
All would use utility grade lean gas and provide low-cost access for Alaskans. The two larger lines would carry additional gas “to amortize in-state cost.”
But it isn’t just the gas volumes that would change.
The gas treatment facility on the North Slope, described as “physical solvent technology” and estimated to occupy some 70 acres at Prudhoe, would require a different technology and would also occupy a site estimated at 200 acres.
The ASAP pipeline, with a terminus at Enstar’s Beluga pipeline near Big Lake, would be 727 miles at 1,480 psi. The other two lines would both go to tidewater in Cook Inlet, and are estimated at 740 miles. The 1.4 bcf line would also be at 1,480 psi, but the 2.4 bcf line would be at 2,220 psi.
And while the original ASAP requires only compression at the gas treatment facility at Prudhoe, the other lines would require between eight and 15 compressor stations along the line.
LNG is not part of the original ASAP, but both alternatives would have an LNG plant that would be built by others, not AGDC.
Construction of ASAP is estimated at 3.5 years; construction of the alternatives is estimated at five to six years, with completion of the smaller line in 2024 (assuming final investment decision in 2019) and 2025 for the other two alternatives, with the same FID date.
What AGDC will do
Fauske said what AGDC will do is to make sure ASAP is designed at a level that better meets needs of Alaska or the market than what is currently envisioned. He said the hope is that AKLNG goes forward, but if it doesn’t, 500 million cubic feet doesn’t fit market needs.
He said AGDC believes that House Bill 4, which established AGDC, does allow it to look at the expansion proposals.
What AGDC is doing now is developing estimates to see what it would cost to do this. The next board meeting is April 9, he said, but if numbers are developed earlier an earlier board meeting would be requested.
He said staff has been asked to come back to the board with numbers. He said he doesn’t know if AGDC has enough funds to do the work.
Richards said there are two main components - the gas treatment plant and the pipe. The pipe work that AGDC has done is “solid” he said, and can be used for the reconfigured project.
He also noted that since termination of the AGIA agreement AGDC has been asked repeatedly for maximum throughput of the pipe; there have been numerous discussions of the need for more compression and for upsizing the GTP, he said.
HB 132
HB 132 moved out of House Resources March 14 and out of House Labor and Commerce March 18; the bill had only those two referrals. Amended in both committees, Republicans voted to move the bill out, Democrats were opposed. Amendments are expected on the House floor.
