N/S producers to Alaska: shove it!(From the Publisher)

• Author: McCorkle, Vern

The North Slope producers agreed in 1991 to strand Alaska's gas at least until 2005. Each has competing gas reserves in other parts of the world pressing for action, making it an easy call to scuttle Alaska's gas. "We'll let you know when the time is right." They can out-wait us thinking we will knuckle under.

BP announces that this month it will sign up customers in the U.S. First gas goes to Sempra in San Diego, from a plant in Baja on line by 2008. According to John Feenan, energy consultant at Wood Mackenzie in Sydney, "BP has been quite aggressive in their marketing of LNG."

ConocoPhillips, the third largest integrated oil and gas company in the world ranking only behind No. 1 ExxonMobile and No. 2 Chevron Texaco, has announced plans to develop a LNG import terminal at the Port of Long Beach.

ExxonMobile has a $600 million terminal in the works near Port Arthur Texas, projected to come on line by 2009 and supply central U.S. customers and a facility located on Grand Bahama Island to supply Florida Light & Power Both LNG operations are supplied from new E/M interests in Qatar and are expected to run for 25 years.

Realizing producer conflicts of interest and self interest and their proven history of refusing to make North Slope natural gas available, Alaska should give serious thought to taking back its gas or at the very least taxing it as an inventory item.

Not profitable? Balderdash. That's what we're supposed to think. LNG demand in the U.S. is projected to quadruple by 2010! The North Slope to Valdez gas line proposition has been "studied" and found to be unfeasible by the Alaska North Slope LNG sponsor group: ConocoPhillips, BP Exploration the Marubeni Corp. and Foothills Pipelines.

Foothills Pipelines belongs to TransCanada, the international pipeline giant Is anyone surprised that an all-Alaskan pipeline is "unfeasible?" On June 2...