Producers go back to drawing board to lower gasline costs

Kay Cashman

The North Slope producers’ gas team is “going back and looking at all the numbers — variations in size of pipe, etcetera — to try to bring the costs of the projects down,” team spokesman Curtis Thayer told PNA Sept. 7.

“We're double checking all our figures (on both routes),” Thayer said.

Rumors that the Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team paid a visit to Alaska’s Congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. the first week in September to tell them the Alaska Highway gasline route was no longer an option are not true, Thayer said.

“Nothing has changed. Neither pipeline route is economic at this point,” he said. “We have not chosen one route over the other. … Preliminary estimates show the northern route is $2 billion cheaper.”

So why are representatives from the producers’ gas team meeting with the staffs of Alaska's Congressional delegation?

Prior to Congress’ one-month recess the producers’ gas team gave Alaska’s delegation a draft piece of legislation that would expedite the regulatory review process for a gas pipeline from the North Slope to the Lower 48. Members of the producers’ gas team were in Washington, D.C. in early September meeting with Congressional staff members, Thayer said, to discuss that legislation.

The producers are “not wedded” to the language in the draft, he said. “The legislation is neutral; it does not specify a route nor does it specify that our three North Slope producers have to be the ones to benefit from the legislation. Anyone can build a pipeline from the North Slope to the Lower 48 with this legislation.”

Thayer confirmed that the producers’ gas team would close down its study if a route was legislated by the U.S. Congress: “Our project study is not justified if a route is mandated. … we need to keep our options open.”