Untimely Comments

View submitted comment as scanned PDF
submitted by Alberta Energy Office of the Deputy Minister

The AGIA process appears to correctly address issues regarding moving natural gas to be marketed from resource pools in the state. The AGIA committee gave excellent townhouse presentations.
Inducements that encourage promoting in state development and processing for added value and marketing will benefit Alaska far greater than simply ..., "piping it out of the country". A minimum benefit to the work force in state should be, aside from in state domestic utilities and "induced manufacturing and process plants", the liquifaction for transport. LNG facilities at ice free ports for shipping to instate residents of coastal communities as well as markets to foriegn ports should be a minimum benefit to the
Alaskan people. Many LNG/refrigeration vessels can be built with only a tiny fraction of the steel required for the pipeline proposed across Canada.
My opinion is NO, to the TransCanada application.

Thank you, Dave
submitted by Allred, David

View submitted comment as scanned PDF
submitted by American Village

While I admire the new approach the Palin administration has taken in pursuit of not only a gasline but the responsible and beneficial development of our natural resources in many ways, I do not support the award of AGIA license to TransCanada as a result of their current proposal.

The development of our resources is to "maximise benefit" to Alaskans, and clearly the TransCanada proposal brings less benefit to Alaskans than the AGPA proposal for an all Alaska gasline.

It would not serve the people of the state well to discount pursuing the best project for Alaska for the sake of adhereing to the rules of a process that may have not rendered the best option.

The TransCanada proposal does not guarantee a gasline, and, under their proposal, it could be up to 5 years before we find out if there will be one. This is unacceptable.

It is time for Alaska to take the control of whether, and when, and how our natural gas is taken to market. I believe the majority of Alaskans would support State ownership of an ANS gasline project, in order to protect Alaskan's interests in all aspects of its development. Alaskans have consistently, over 30 years, stated that an all Alaska gasline is their preference.

I recommend that the commissioners elect NOT to award the AGIA license to TransCanada, based on the fact that there are other options available to the State that would better satisfy the requirement of "maximum benefit".






submitted by Backes, Lori

Just a question, even though the public comment period is closed, will you still keep this website up and review comments that may come in?
submitted by Backes, Lori

I think it took a lot of courage to stand up to the status quo. I commend Gov. Palin for standing up to those who take advantage of our State and act like they're doing us a favor developing our resource. They begrudge every cent they pay us, even though they've made millions (billions?) of dollars! They have not properly maintained the pipeline as promised. Their agents try to bribe our representatives (and succeed with some). Why should we allow them carte blanche to our resource, when their past history is so poor?

When will they settle the Exxon Valdez case and pay us for the damages
we incurred, instead of dragging this on ad infinitum?

You go, Sarah! Don't let them bully you into submission!
submitted by Brown, Merle

View submitted comment as scanned PDF
submitted by ConocoPhillips

TransCanada's proposal for the natural gas pipeline is NOT compliant with AGIA.

I strongly believe that AGIA does NOT support or promote progress for the actual building of a natural gas pipeline for Alaska. AGIA makes any license holder under AGIA spend Alaska's money unwisely and futilely for a federal application that can only be denied and puts requirements on the actual project that are unworkable, ineffective and generate even further costs and delays.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.



submitted by Cowling, Cindy

While the TransCanada application has been deemed compliant with the AGIA requirements, I believe that TransCanada on its own is incapable of delivering a successful gas pipeline project, that this application should be rejected, and that the AGIA requirements must be fundamentally overhauled in order to attract a sufficient and capable pool of applicants. There are several flaws with this process and this applicant that must prevent an exclusive license being awarded to TransCanada under the current terms. I have several specific concerns:

- Regardless of the applicants' qualifications to construct a pipeline, AGIA has failed to provide the critical financial framework needed for a successful open season. Without knowing what the State tax and royalty terms are for gas production and transportation, a potential shipper cannot assess the financial return of a project, and thus will not be able to commit to firm transportation on any system under AGIA. A clear and certain framework must be established before an open season can succeed, and the State has thus far failed to establish this framework as part of AGIA.

- This will be a massive and complex project, and will require all of the stakeholders working together to succeed. We must find a way to provide alignment and common financial benefit for the pipeline builders/owners, the gas producers and shippers, and the State whereby all can benefit together. AGIA seems to seek to divide and isolate these critical stakeholders rather than bring them together. I believe that TransCanada will ultimately need to be part of a successful project consortium in order to provide access to the Canadian portion of the route, but they do not have the financial capability, arctic construction experience, access to gas reserves, or fundamental Alaskan "presence" needed to be awarded an exclusive license.

- TransCanada's likely debt liability to it's "withdrawn partners" is a major potential obstacle, and neither their application nor their explanations to date are sufficient to remove this threat. No ownership stake in this project should be awarded to TransCanada until this potential liability has been clearly resolved, else it risks lengthy litigation and delay in dealing with the withdrawn partners.

- TransCanada's suggested requirement of further federal assistance and guarantees is a non-starter, as evidenced by the comments of Senators Stevens and Murkowski, and all other federal officials I have heard comment on this.

Thus, I urge the State to reject the TransCanada bid as currently framed, to establish the needed clear fiscal framework, and to revise the terms of AGIA to accommodate the substantial concerns that have been clearly expressed by other pipeline companies and by the gas producers. A revision is needed to allow a wider pool of qualified bidders, and this wider pool is needed to develop a capable bidding consortium which can ultimately deliver a successful project. Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Scott Digert


submitted by Digert, Scott

View submitted comment as scanned PDF
submitted by Ellis, Ed

The people of Alaska voted for an "All Alaska Gas Line". Why isn't it even being considered?

We don't want a big complicated, expensive, risky gas line that goes all the way to the lower 48. If the price goes down we could loose our shirts and probably a lot more.

The state should revoke the Pt. Thompson leases. We should build and pay for our own pipe line to south central. That would take care of most of the problems dealing with the oil companies. And we would be in control of our own gas.

We should not move forward with the TransCanada proposal. We want an "All Alaska Gas Line." That's what we Alaskan's voted for.

submitted by Furbush, Carolyn

We do not need a gas line out of state just to sell off our gas as fast as we can just to have more spending money.

We need gas here in Alaska for our heating and economic needs, for a petrochemical industry for added value products. Carbon chemistry is the future of Alaska's economy.

We need to add value to our resources not just sell off recourses for a fast buck.

What happened to the instate proposals? Why aren't they being considered?

The state should cancel the leases on Pt. Thompson. It's our gas we should be able to do what we want with it. They had their chance.

The NGLs should stay in state. They are too valuable to give away with the natural gas.

We should own our gas line and our gas then we could dance to our own tune not the oil companies or anyone else's.

The gas line should as many take off points where ever they may be need for future uses.

submitted by Furbush, Clarence

View submitted comment as scanned PDF
submitted by Janka, David P.

I believe Gov. Palin's courage to stand against the big oil companies and to give others a chance to submit proposals for developing our resouce is exemplary. They had their chance to submit applications, but chose not to do so. Now they're crying the blues. Well, too bad! Their arrogance and inability to safely handle the resource under their control right now make me happy they are no longer involved in the process. They have made billions of dollars, begrudging every penny they give to the State of Alaska. Whose resource is it anyway? Not theirs, that's for sure, even though they think so.

We have an extremely valuable resource. We should not give it away.

The Veco corruption scandal is an abomination! Those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, with no special jails to be sent to, no waiting to serve time until a family member gives birth to a child, etc. They were elected officials that are held to the highest trust. Because they betrayed that trust, they should have the maximum sentence allowed!

You go, Sarah! We're proud of you and the work you do! Please don't let them corrupt you.
submitted by Kennedy, Gloria

The Canadian gas pipeline does not give the best benefit to the Alaskan people as required in the Alaska Constitution, Article 8.
submitted by Lee, Freddie Sue

I would like to thank the administration for conducting the town hall style informational meetings which were conducted in several communities. Many complex issues are involved in this process and I believe Governor Palin is on the correct course with the AGIA plan. I would like to address a single one of those many issues and that is "Gas for Alaskans" and how that part of the AGIA will be implemented. As presented in the town hall meeting, the proposal envisions 5 off-take points and distance sensitive tariffs. This seems like a good idea if it actually results in significant cost savings to the end consumers. However, if the intermediate entities which market the gas simply pocket the transportation savings without passing along any significant savings to the consumer, then the benefit will be to a very select few. In Fairbanks and North Pole, consumers pay prices for gasoline and home heating oil which are usually at or often above the national average despite the fact that the TAPS line runs right through the communities and is directly accessed by refineries in North Pole. This situation has persisted for decades and has not changed with different owners of the refineries. The corrosive effects of artificially high prices are multiplied as the refined products are shipped to outlying villages. Hopefully, this very negative situation could be remedied in some fashion by AGIA at the off-take points and insure that the lion's share of distance sensitive rates are really given to the end consumer and not to an "outside" corporate entity.
submitted by mcamis, william

View submitted comment as scanned PDF
submitted by Northrim Bank

View submitted comment as scanned PDF
submitted by O'Hara, Michael

View submitted comment as scanned PDF
submitted by OHara, M.J.

We do NOT need to sell the natural gas nor run the gas line to or through to Canada. There are too many value added jobs lost by going that way, not to mention the fact that if the line follows the highway and leaves the state that way there are currently no provisions for the people in Alaska to gain access to the gas. Too where is the shut off valve, should relations between Canada and the U.S. sour? As I understand the Canadian route proposal there is no guarentee that any of the gas will be delivered to the lower 48, there is something wrong with that, and why should Canada get a price break on Alaskan gas? From what I was told there is about a two dollar difference in the price by going to Canada.
Where in the "accepted proposal" is the language for qualified Alaskan Workers to be hired FIRST? We have seen lots of union and trade school advertisements over the past few weeks but, what is there to say that our (young) people will even get a chance at building the pipeline.
Govenor Palins' election was the third referendum on keeping an ALL Alaskan Gas line. If I am not mistaken part of her platform was keeping the Gas line an "all alaskan" route.
Why wait 10 years for the Canadians to settle their right of way claims, when in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst the pipe for an ALL Alaskan route can be in the process of being laid?
I have seen NO transperancy in the way this entire affair has been conducted (again). What needs to be addressed to stop criticism is WHY (line for line) one proposal was or is accepted over another. This is State of Alaska business. We the people are the state and if a company, any company wants to do business they should NOT be allowed to hide behind a "propritary business clause".
Thank You,
G. L. Reiss
submitted by Reiss, Greg

I FULLY SUPPORT the Trans Canada proposal. I urge the Governor to complete the Administrations analysis ASAP and submit to the legislature before they adjourn.

I atttended the TransCanada VP presentation to the Fai Chamber combined committees. He was thorough and answered all questions to my satisfaction. I think TransCanada is more than accomodating to the needs of Alaska if they remain as flexible as they say.

We MUST have gas for in-state use with no delays. I still prefer a Bullet Line in order to get us gas sooner. With AGIA or Conoco ten to twenty years from completion it may make economic sense to get gas flowing sooner with a subsidized in-state small line to the railbelt.

Hazards that producers will not commit at Open Season is a big fear but the threat of retalitory taxes on in-place gas reservoirs should help mitigate that action.

If Conoco gets a FERC permit and does join hands with TransCanada we may be in deep trouble if state is stuck paying triple damages plus the 500 million for a line that cannot be completed due to Conoco and the other producers.

For this comment: 100% IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING TRANS CANADA APPLICATION.
submitted by Timmons, Gerald

View submitted comment as scanned PDF
submitted by Travis, Peg

Thank you for this open process.
submitted by Walker, Bill

I found this at http://polarwarming.ca/blog/?p=254

" Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is receiving greater attention as a possible cheaper alternative to northern gas pipeline projects e.g. Mackenzie Valley Gas Project."

They go on to refer the reader to a "double-acting Ship" site describing the new, Stern-first icebreakers.
They also refer to another article, where a Yukon politico fears cheap [Arab] LNG will undersell the pipeline http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/02/12/north-gas.html

As I said before, with its higher-by-$3 toll, either pipe: Alberta or Valdez, is bankruptable by Qatar at least. But they cannot come close to the DIRECT from the North Slope options, as they are so much farther away.

... now if TransCanada is going to switch their own pipe to Tankers why should you be left with the inferior tech ?


submitted by Wilson, Charles