Alaska's gas options: is the legislature astute enough to know what to do now?

• Author: McCorkle, Vern C.
• Position: From The Publisher

Public attention may have temporarily shifted from Alaska's natural gas pipelines and all of their machinations, to ANWR and all of its breaking news of late. The result is there have been only sketchy reports on the battle royal going on in Canada to build the Canada-to-Chicago (think Alaska gas) pipeline. And unfortunately, legislators caught up in Juneau busywork may not have even the foggiest notion of what to think or do about the most crucial matter of public policy they will ever face in their entire legislative careers-bar none!

Three Canadian provinces, two pipeline builder giants and a land claims initiative, not unlike our own Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, are all part of the tapestry.

Add softwood and beef cattle import embargoes by the U.S., hard feelings about a shared salmon fishery and a smattering of other teacup tempests, and it becomes too, too obvious the only line that can get gas off of the North Slope and into Alaska before 2017 is the Alaska Gasline Port Authority and companion spur lines proposed by the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority, both possible by 2011 and before gas markets close forever to Alaska.

GETTING RIGHT DOWN TO IT

Getting gas to the Alcan border is not the problem. One North Slope producer has said it could build the line by itself-doesn't need any help from anyone and is holding that option open. It has built more pipelines than the two Canadian companies combined, it asserts. 'Tis true. But once they get gas to the border, then what? That line must run through three Canadian provinces, that's what.

* In the Yukon, news reports reveal that its Premier has put it bluntly: the Mackenzie pipeline that runs through Northwest Territories must be built before an Alaska-Canada line will be allowed through the Yukon. He surmises that if the Mackenzie line is not built first, it might never be built. He may be right.

*...