DOCSLIB.ORG

Preliminary Findings and Determination Stranded Gas Development Act May 10, 2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preliminary Findings and Determination Stranded Gas Development Act May 10, 2006 Preliminary Findings and Determination As required by the Stranded Gas Development Act For a Contract between the State of Alaska and BP Alaska (Exploration), Inc. ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil Alaska Production, Inc. Contract Version dated , 2006 May 10, 2006 I FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE P.O. BOX 110400 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0400 TELEPHONE: (907) 465-2300 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FACSIMILE: (907) 465-2389 May 10,2006 The Honorable Frank Murkowski, Governor The Honorable Ben Stevens, President of the Alaska State Senate The Honorable John Harris, Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives The Honorable Lyda Green, Co-Chair Senate Finance Committee The Honorable Gary Wilken, Co-Chair Senate Finance Committee The Honorable Mike Chenault, Co-Chair House Finance Committee The Honorable Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair House Finance Committee .The Honorable Tom Wagoner, Chair Senate Resources Committee The Honorable Jay Ramras, Co-Chair House Resources Committee The Honorable Ralph Samuels, Co-Chair House Resources Committee The Honorable Vic Kohring, Chair House Special Committee on Oil & Gas Regarding: Transmittal of Preliminary Fiscal Interest Finding and the terms of the proposed Fiscal Contract between the State of Alaska and the Sponsor Group of the Alaska Gas Pipeline Project Dear Governor and Legislators; In accordance with the duties conferred on my office by AS 43.82.400, I am transmitting to you a copy of the Preliminary Fiscal Interest Finding and the proposed Alaska Stranded Gas Fiscal Contract between the State of Alaska and BP Exploration (Alaska) Incorporated, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Incorporated, and ExxonMobil, Alaska Production, Incorporated. In compliance with the requirement of AS 43.82.41 0(2), the financial, technical, market data and other documents supporting the fiscal interest finding are open and available to the public through posting on the following website www.revenue.state.ak.us/Gasline/ContractDocuments By separate action I have given the public notice required by AS 43.82.41 0(1 ). Regards, William A. Corbus Commissioner 04-D2LH y printed on recycled pope Preliminary Findings and Determination As required by the Stranded Gas Development Act For a Contract between the State of Alaska and BP Alaska (Exploration), Inc. ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil Alaska Production, Inc. Contract Version dated , 2006. May 10, 2006 Contents Section Page Contents .................................................................................................................................. iii Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ xii Glossary ................................................................................................................................ xvi Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... ES-1 Preliminary Findings and Determination of the Commissioner ..........................................ES-1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................ES-2 Alaska’s Natural Gas Resources..........................................................................................ES-2 SGDA Framework ...............................................................................................................ES-3 Project Description...............................................................................................................ES-3 Summary of the Contract.....................................................................................................ES-5 Guiding Principles ...............................................................................................................ES-6 Alaskans Deserve a Fair Share of the Revenues..................................................................ES-6 Alaskans Need Access to the Gas........................................................................................ES-7 Future Explorers Must Have Access to the Gas Pipeline ....................................................ES-8 The Gas Pipeline Must be Expandable ................................................................................ES-9 The State Should Own a Share of the Pipeline....................................................................ES-9 Alaskans Deserve Pipeline Jobs.........................................................................................ES-10 Other Major Issues.............................................................................................................ES-10 SGDA Principles and Framework .....................................................................................ES-13 Evaluations Section............................................................................................................ES-15 Gas Pipeline Applications..................................................................................................ES-17 Mitigating Project Risk......................................................................................................ES-19 Gas Pipeline Financing ......................................................................................................ES-20 Steps to Move the Project Forward....................................................................................ES-22 1 Background................................................................................................................1 1.1 Alaska’s Long Run Fiscal Outlook .............................................................................1 1.1.1 Future Oil and Gas Production....................................................................................4 1.1.2 Future Energy Prices ...................................................................................................5 1.1.3 Future Alaska Government Appropriations ................................................................6 1.1.4 Non-Oil Revenue.........................................................................................................7 1.1.5 Fiscal Systems .............................................................................................................8 1.2 Alaska North Slope Natural Gas Resources..............................................................12 1.2.1 Volume of ANS Natural Gas Resources and Reserves.............................................13 1.2.2 Impacts of Gas Production on Oil Production...........................................................14 1.2.3 Cost Sharing and Economically Recoverable Oil Resources....................................15 Alaska Department of Revenue FIF-iii Preliminary Fiscal Interest Finding 1.3 History of Attempts to Build Pipeline.......................................................................15 1.3.1 Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act (ANGTA)...................................................15 1.3.2 Projects under Other Federal Statutes .......................................................................17 1.3.3 Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (ANGPA) .............................................................18 1.3.4 American Jobs Creation Act (AJCA) ........................................................................22 1.4 Stranded Gas Development Act ................................................................................22 1.4.1 History and Purpose of the SGDA ............................................................................23 1.4.2 The Municipal Advisory Group ................................................................................23 1.4.3 Definition of Stranded Gas........................................................................................24 1.4.4 Process Established by the SGDA.............................................................................26 1.5 The State’s Guiding Principles and a Development Concept for the Future ............30 1.5.1 The Governor’s Six Gas Pipeline Principles.............................................................30 1.5.2 The Alaska Development Vision...............................................................................30 1.6 Negotiations with the Sponsor Group .......................................................................32 1.6.1 Due Diligence and Verification.................................................................................33 1.6.2 The Negotiations and Core Issues .............................................................................36 2 Project Description..................................................................................................39 2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................39 2.2 Physical Components................................................................................................40 2.2.1 Gas Treatment Plant (GTP) .......................................................................................40 2.2.2 Mainline.....................................................................................................................41 2.2.3 Gas Transmission Pipelines.......................................................................................41 2.2.4 Alaska – Alberta Pipeline..........................................................................................41 2.2.5 Natural Gas Liquids
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS)
    Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Proposals (North Slope to Market) Chronology of Events: 1984- by Betty Galbraith 7/15/09 March 7, 1984 The Joint Oil and Gas Committee met to receive briefings on the status of transporting and marketing North slope natural gas. Yukon Pacific Corporation's TAGS project for exporting gas to Pacific Rim countries was discussed as an alternative to ANGTS. March 10, 1984 Legislative digest: A Forecast and Review reported that testimony before the Alaska Joint House-Senate Oil and Gas Committees indicated that natural gas markets in the U.S. and elsewhere would have to improve substantially before financing of the gas pipeline could be financed. Dec 15, 1984 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order conditionally approving an extension of the importation of natural gas from Canada for another 4 year period. April 3, 1986 HCR 8 encouraging the Governor to consider a gas pipeline from the North Slope to Fairbanks with spurs to other communities as an alternative to other energy proposals, passed to become Alaska Legislative Resolve 36 Nov 1, 1986 The Bureau of Land Management published a notice in the Federal Register, of their intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the TAGS pipeline proposal. Dec 5, 1986 Yukon Pacific Corporation issued its Trans-Alaska Gas System Project Description. The project involved a pipeline to transport North Slope gas to tidewater, a facility in the Valdez area to liquefy the gas for ocean transport to Asia. The project would be phased in over a period of years. Dec 5, 1986 Yukon Pacific Corporation filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management and the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a large diameter pipeline between Prudhoe Bay and Anderson Bay (Valdez) to export LNG.
    [Show full text]
  • Near East University Docs
    NEAR EAST UNIVERSITY THE FACULTY OF MARITIME STUDIES GRADUATION PROJECT LNG CARRIAGE ON THE WORLD Submitted to: OCEAN GOING MASTER AHMET BEYOGLU Submitted by: EMRE EVREN YURTSEVEN SHIP MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NICOSIA - 2003 • Introduction The purpose of the IMO model coursesis to assist maritime training institutes and their teaching staff in organising and introducing new training courses, or in enhancing, updating or supplementing existing training material where the quality and effectiveness of the training courses may thereby be improved. It is not the intention of the model course programme to present instructors with a rigid 'teaching package' which they are expected to 'follow blindly' .Nor, is the intention to substitute audio-visual or 'programmed' material for the instructor's presence .As in all training endeavours, the knowledge, skills and detication of the instructor are the key components in the transfer of knowledge and skills to those being trained through IMO model course material. Because educational systems and the cultural backgrounds of trainees in maritime subjects vary considerably from country, the model course material has been designed to identify the basic entry requirements and trainee target group for each course in universally applicable terms , and to specify clearly the technical content and levels of knowledge and skill necessary to meet the technical intent of IMO conventions and related recommendations . • CONTENTS: PARTl SECTION 1 1. Executive Summary 1 1.1 Main conclusions 1 1.2 Natural gas demand trends 3 1.3 Natural gas reserves 3 1.4 Historical developmentof natural gas carriage 4 SECTiON 2 2. The natural gas market 5 2.1 What is natural gas and energy 5 2.1.1 Natural gas 5 2.1.2 Liquefied natural gas LNG 5 2.1.3 Applications 5 2.1.4 The natural gas industry 6 2.1.5 Natural gas and environment 7 2.2 World primary energy consumption 8 2.3 Natural gas consumption trends 11 2.4 Natural gas production trends 12 2.5 The international natural gas reserves 13 2.6 The international natural gas trade 14 SECTiON 3 3.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 Compensation and Travel Report
    STATE OF ALASKA Compensation and Travel Report of Executive Positions for 2006 Prepared by: Department of Administration Division of Finance January 31, 2007 This page intentionally left blank. SARAH PALIN, GOVERNOR P.O. Box 110200 Juneau, AK 99811-0200 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION Phone: 465-2200 Fax: 465-2135 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER January 31, 2007 Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801 Members of the Legislature: The report of compensation and travel expenses for calendar year 2006 has been compiled by the Department of Administration, Division of Finance. This report is prepared in accordance with Alaska Statute 37.05.210. It includes salaries and other compensation such as leave cash-in amounts and salary adjustments, as well as travel and relocation expenses paid to the following: the governor, lieutenant governor, and their chiefs of staff; the president and vice-presidents of the University of Alaska and the chancellors of the individual campuses of the university; the commissioners or other executive heads of the principal departments in the executive branch, and the deputy commissioners and division directors in those departments; and the executive heads of public corporations created by law. This year’s report also includes compensation and travel data for department assistant commissioners at the request of Governor Sarah Palin. This report is no longer published in a hardcopy format, it is available in an electronic (PDF) format at the Division of Finance's website http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/financial_reports/ ctep_toc.jsp. This change in format was implemented based on a recommendation made by the department's Senate Finance Budget Subcommittee in 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • 5Th Pipeline Technology Conference 2010
    5th Pipeline Technology Conference 2010 The next generation of oil and gas pipelines - who, what, where and when.... Julian Lee Senior Energy Analyst Centre for Global Energy Studies UK Abstract This paper seeks to identify the next wave of major oil and gas pipeline construction projects around the world, assessing which countries are likely to be able to turn their plans for new pipelines into real, bankable projects. It is not a comprehensive, or exhaustive, list of new pipeline projects. There is no shortage of new oil and gas pipeline proposals that are keeping project sponsors, industry analysts and conference organisers busy. Many of them are grand in their ambition, many seek to meet the political ends of their sponsors, many cross several international borders, and all will compete for capital and resources. Many of tomorrow’s oil and gas supplies are being developed in areas that are remote from existing infrastructure, far from markets or export terminals. Tomorrow’s big, new hydrocarbons consumers live in countries that are only just beginning to develop their oil and gas import and transmission infrastructures, while traditional markets are stagnating. Politics, too, is playing its part, as old alliances are tested and both buyers and sellers seek security of supply and greater diversification. 1. The evolving geography of oil and gas The geography of oil and gas trade is changing. Big new oil and consumers are emerging. The centre of energy demand growth has shifted dramatically from West to East. At the same time, new centres of oil and gas production are also emerging.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Oil and Natural Gas: Alaskan Resources, Access and Infrastructure
    W RITTEN STATEMENT OF C YNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN A DMINISTRATOR PIPEL INE AND H AZARDOUS M ATERIALS SAFETY A DMINISTRATION B EFORE THE C OMMITTEE ON NATURAL R ESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON E NERGY AND M INERAL R ESOURCES UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Domestic Oil and Natural Gas: Alaskan Resources, Access and Infrastructure June 2, 2011 I. Introduction Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) oversight of America’s 2.5-million-mile energy pipeline system. Safety is the number one priority of Secretary Ray LaHood, myself, and the employees of PHMSA and we are all strongly committed to reducing transportation risks to the public and environment. Our Nation’s reliance on the safe and environmentally sound transportation of energy fuels and hazardous materials is increasing. PHMSA’s safety oversight of the pipeline network that delivers these products is providing critical protections for the American people. PHMSA is responsible for establishing and enforcing safety standards for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the nation’s pipeline transportation system. PHMSA's authority to regulate pipelines includes oversight of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), North Slope pipelines, certain pipelines in the Cook Inlet area, Liquefied Natural Gas (or LNG) facilities, and the distribution systems that deliver natural gas to homes, businesses, and power plants. Alaska oil and gas resources are critical to the nation’s energy needs, and PHMSA recognizes its role in ensuring that this energy is transported safely and efficiently.
    [Show full text]
  • Growing Value $245 Billion of Revenues As of Dec
    www.conocophillips.com ConocoPhillips is an international, integrated energy company with interests around the world. Headquartered in Houston, the company had operations in more than 35 countries, approximately 29,800 employees, $153 billion of assets and Growing Value $245 billion of revenues as of Dec. 31, 2011. 2011 SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORT 90414conD1R1.indd 1 2/28/12 11:05 PM Shareholder Information 1 Letter to Shareholders Certain disclosures in this Summary Annual Annual Meeting Information Requests Copies of Form 10-K, Proxy Statement 49 Report may be considered “forward-looking” and Summary Annual Report 5 Financial and Operating Highlights ConocoPhillips’ annual meeting of For information about dividends and statements. These are made pursuant to “safe stockholders will be held: certificates, or to request a change of Copies of the Annual Report on Form 10-K 6 Repositioning harbor” provisions of the Private Securities address form, shareholders may contact: and the Proxy Statement, as filed with the Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The “Cautionary Wednesday, May 9, 2012 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Statement” in Management’s Discussion and Omni Houston Hotel Westside Computershare are available free by making a request on Our Commitments Analysis in Appendix A of ConocoPhillips’ 2012 13210 Katy Freeway, Houston, Texas P.O. Box 358015 the company’s website, calling 918-661- Proxy Statement should be read in conjunction Pittsburgh, PA 15252-8015 8 Enhancing Financial Performance Notice of the meeting and proxy materials 3700 or writing: with such statements. Toll-free number: 800-356-0066 are being sent to all shareholders. 10 Empowering Our People Outside the U.S.: 201-680-6578 ConocoPhillips – 2011 Form 10-K TDD for hearing impaired: 800-231-5469 B-41 Adams Building 12 Operating Responsibly “ConocoPhillips,” “the company,” “we,” “us” Direct Stock Purchase and Dividend and “our” are used interchangeably in this report TDD outside the U.S.: 201-680-6610 411 South Keeler Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska's Citizens Lock out Private Prisons
    ALASKA’S CITIZENS LOCK OUT PRIVATE PRISONS PU BLI C OPI NION BLOCKS PRIVA TI ZA TION ATTEMPTS By LINDA CA SEY November 6, 2008 NATIO NA L IN STI TU TE O N MONEY I N STA TE PO LITI CS This publication was made possible with support from: Carnegie Corporation of New York, Strengthening U.S. Democracy Ford Foundation, Governance Performance and Accountability The Pew Charitable Trusts, State Policy Initiatives Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Program on Democratic Practice 833 NORTH LAST CHANCE GULCH, SECOND FLOOR • HELENA, MT • 59601 PHONE 406-449-2480 • FAX 406-457-2091 • E-MAIL [email protected] www.followthemoney.org OVERVIEW Since the mid-1990s — through six legislative sessions and three gubernatorial administrations — Alaska’s lawmakers have made more than a half dozen attempts to privatize prisons. These attempts have met with unfavorable public opinion. To date, the strength of public opposition has prevailed, and all private prison proposals have been defeated. But the state needs prison beds, and a lack of them means that state prisoners are being sent to other states.1 In 2004, the issue was addressed with the passage of Senate Bill 65, which authorized construction of a 1,500-bed prison in Matanuska-Susitna Borough. But it is not a private prison. Construction began in August 2008, but none of the design or construction of the facility is being performed by the private-prison interests that have been involved in the push for privatization of prisons since the early 1990s. Instead the facility’s construction will be controlled by the Mat-Su Borough and operated by the state of Alaska.2 BACKGROUND Starting in the 1990s, five donors formed a variety of partnerships in an effort to promote the private prison idea in Alaska: .
    [Show full text]
  • To: Interested Reporters From: Ross Hammond, Friends of the Earth
    To: Interested Reporters From: Ross Hammond, Friends of the Earth & Gabe Elsner, Checks & Balances Project Re: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: State Department contractor on Keystone XL environmental review lied to the State Department about ties to TransCanada & oil industry Date: July 10, 2013 OVERVIEW The American public entrusted the State Department to produce an unbiased environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline, but the contractor performing the review lied to the State Department about its conflicts of interest and failed to divulge close business relationships with TransCanada and the oil industry. Environmental Resources Management has worked for TransCanada since at least 2011 on the Alaska Pipeline Project, but in its signed conflict of interest disclosure form, filed with the State Department in June 2012, ERM claimed to have “no existing contract or working relationship with TransCanada” within the past three years. Publicly available documents detail ERM’s business relationship with the Alaska Pipeline Project and the project’s two primary companies, TransCanada and ExxonMobil. ERM also lied in documents filed with the State Department about its business relationship with other oil companies that will benefit from the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. ERM's own publicly available documents show that the firm has business with over a dozen companies with operating stakes in the Alberta tar sands. ERM is also a member of the American Petroleum Institute, which has spent millions lobbying in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline. ERM is not in the business of providing unbiased environmental reviews, but working with clients “all the way to final approval” according to marketing materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report on the Review of the Alaska LNG Project Process
    Summary Report on the Review of the Alaska LNG Project Process Office of the Governor State of Alaska September 24, 2015 The following report summarizes the results of a review of the process established for the proposed liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) project currently being worked on by the State of Alaska, TransCanada, ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips under the negotiating framework most recently enacted in 2014 by Senate Bill 138: the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Project (“AKLNG Project,” “AKLNG,” or “Project”). The majority of challenges are structural and commercial in nature rather than technical. The report will first discuss the history of prior Alaska gas pipeline development efforts, and then the commercial difficulties faced by the AKLNG Project. I. HISTORY OF EFFORTS TO COMMERCIALIZE NORTH SLOPE GAS The current configuration of the AKLNG Project is the latest in numerous efforts to export North Slope natural gas dating back to the 1970s. This section of the report discusses those efforts in context of the current AKLNG Project and what can be learned from those prior unsuccessful attempts. A. Early Projects Prior to the mid-1980s, there were efforts to advance several different Alaska gas pipeline projects, including those by Prudhoe Bay leaseholders BP, Atlantic Richfield and ExxonMobil (together with successor companies, the “Producers”), and separately by El Paso and Foothills (a predecessor to TransCanada). These attempts reflected, among other issues, the two competing themes consistently present in North Slope gas commercialization efforts. First was the ongoing debate about whether a project should be a North American project through Canada or an LNG project to tidewater in South Central Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Transitions in Alaska and the FY 2010 Budget
    Political Transitions in Alaska and the FY 2010 Budget Jerry McBeath University of Alaska Fairbanks INTRODUCTION This report discusses the factors behind the Alaska FY 2010 budget. It treats the Alaska economy in 2008 and 2009, demographic changes, and important movements in state politics, with a special focus on the national rise of one Alaska political leader—Governor Sarah Palin— and the fall of another, Senator Ted Stevens. The 2008 elections brought slight changes in the composition of the state legislature and a large change in the state’s congressional delegation. The report continues a focus on issues affecting Alaska’s future revenue stream—the natural gas pipeline—and its reputation, the state’s predator control policy. The next section of the report introduces the governor’s operating, supplemental, and capital budget requests, their revision and adoption by the legislature. Legislators paid less attention to the expenditure than the revenue side of budgets, and in the short 90-day session wrangled with the governor over federal stimulus funding, and whether it had “strings.” The final section analyzes state revenues and spending planned for FY 2010. THE ALASKA ECONOMY IN 2008 AND 2009 From the start of the state’s fiscal year on July 1, 2008 (FY 09) to the end of the fiscal year, the Alaska economy experienced extreme volatility in oil prices, but because of surplus revenues saved in previous years, Alaska was in better economic shape than most other states. Because the state is primarily dependent on royalties and taxes collected from oil/gas production, we focus on changes in oil prices before considering other resource sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • 801—Arctic Energy
    North Slope oil and gas - a short history Contents Oil and gas development brought statehood for Alaska, a large and consistent revenue stream for state and local gov- 3 North Slope oil and gas ernments, a $33 billion savings account for Alaskans to enjoy and indoor plumbing and schools for many rural resi- 4 Viscous oil dents, including those who live on the North Slope. 4 Most frequently asked questions Most of Alaska’s oil comes from the 24 producing fields on the North Slope, including Prudhoe Bay, one of the 5 Facts about Alaska largest oil fields in the world. North Slope production totals about 900,000 barrels of oil per day. While the huge Prudhoe Bay field is in gradual decline, North Slope oil fields 5 Economic impact still provide a significant amount of U.S. domestic produc- tion. 6 Who we are An 800-mile-long pipeline carries North Slope oil to tide- 7 Natural gas water where it is transferred to tankers for transport to downstream markets. 8-13 North Slope oil fields Oil was first discovered on the North Slope thousands of 14-17 Drilling technology years ago. Native Eskimos cut blocks of oil-soaked tundra from natural seeps to use as fuel. But the first real search 18-19 Oil production for oil didn’t begin until the late 1920s when hearty explor- ers traveled by dog team, foot and boat. 20-21 Getting oil to market, TAPS The first geologic surveys took place on Alaska’s North Slope in the late 1950s and early 1960s and in 1968, after 22-23 Double hull tankers nearly a dozen unsuccessful wells, or “dry holes,” a major discovery was made.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Report to Congress on Progress Made in Licensing and Constructing the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline
    Report Submitted to the United States Congress by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Third Report to Congress on Progress Made in Licensing and Constructing the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline January 31, 2007 Third Report to Congress on the Alaska Pipeline I. Executive Summary This report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 1 submitted pursuant to section 1810 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005). Section 1810 of EPAct 2005 provides that within 180 days of the date of enactment, and every 180 days thereafter until the Alaska natural gas pipeline commences operation, the Commission shall submit to Congress a report describing the progress made in licensing and constructing the Alaska natural gas pipeline and any impediments thereto. This report describes the events and the progress that have transpired since the Commission’s Second Report on July 10, 2006. During the period covered by this report, the following key events have occurred: the President’s nominee for Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and the Federal Coordinator’s office was opened; oral argument was held in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the petition for review of the Commission’s Open Season regulations; negotiations between certain project sponsors and the State of Alaska on a fiscal contract ended without approval by the Alaskan legislature; and a new Alaska governor was elected in November and sworn into office on December 4, 2006. II. Status Report A. Status of Three Potential Projects The three potential projects described in the Commission’s first two reports are still being pursued by the project sponsors.
    [Show full text]