Palin's Big Oil Experience

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
One therm is 96.7 cubic feet of natural gas.

The proposed pipeline will carry 4.5 billion cubic feet a day.

or .... 46,535,677 therms per day.

Wholesale price of natural gas where I live is $1.13 per therm plus transmission and production costs. In the Winter it's been as high as $1.75 per therm (plus costs). Using an average of $1.50 per therm - - - - -

.... that would generate $69,803,516.02 in total revenue per day ....

or generate $25,478,283,347.30 (that's billion of dollars for the math-challenged) per year in total revenues.

I'll let you figure the lifetime of the pipeline and do your own math.


So .....

Governor Palin doesn't think Big Oil needs such inducements. With a pipeline delivering 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to market, the producers stand to gross up to $1 billion a year each at current prices.

Frank Murkowski was a scum bag. The deal needed to be squashed ....

But don't piss down my neck and tell me it's raining .... this is a project of national importance. At it's current status you have a right believe what you want to believe.

I think paying a mult-national $500+ million for a pipeline they are not obligated to build as part of an 'inducement' is worthy of discussion when a political party claims this as part of their candidate's resume. I didn't hold it up for scrutiny, the Republican party did.

I put it in context and offered my opinion so ... bite me 😛

(Yes. I'm talking to you)

Okay then. We now have a discussion. Buidling the pipeline does not mean they are extracting the gas. The gas travels the pipeline, but does not necessarily belong to the people who own the pipeline. Given that, your payback scenario is somewhat wrong... if the oil companies build the pipeline, then the example is more credible. Still, to generate $25billion a year on an investment of $500million... I think I like that investment. You dont have to. I still think she played it very well.

It doesn't matter to me who owns/builds the pipeline though I feel it it more credible for the natural gas suppliers to capitalize it's construction to avoid major issues surrounding transmission fees. I don't have a problem with State participation and partial ownership because: 1) It can generate revenues/royalties for the State; and 2) State participation guarantees capacity for suppliers who may not have the capital for participation and can p[ay fees to the State for the pipelines use.

The primary issues I see are the 'inducements' to TransCanada and the specifications themselves. There were proposals/alternatives that did not address the 'specs' which appear highly attractive to me. Instead of building a 1,700-mile pipeline into Canada, why not a shorter, less-expensive alternative which would bring the natural gas to market in much less time? As an example ...

This is a map of an existing Prudhoe Bay pipeline that crosses the State of Alaska. It's half the length of the 'proposed' TransCanada pipeline. Now consider ...

1) The right-of-way exists;
2) Some elements of preliminary engineering have been done;
3) Congress approved guaranteed financing in 2003 for an LNG terminal;
4) Environmental assessments have been previously done on the corridor; and
5) Did I mention it's cheaper and can be built more quickly?

I don't know the process and 'RFP' (request for proposals) the State of Alaska conducted as a precursor to writing the specifications (which seen to have excluded this and other alternatives) and legislation.

Clearly this alternative was considered highly plausible in the past because Congress approved guaranteed financing for the LNG terminal over 5 years ago and $18 billion in guaranteed financing for a pipeline 3 years ago.

You can't build an LNG terminal without a supply of natural gas 😛

So why did Palin and the State of Alaska support TransCanada and pay them $500+ million in 'inducements' without any guarantee the pipeline would be built? How and why were the specifications written to seemingly exclude alternatives that were previously viable?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: skyking
In your defense, I googled some of the phrases in your post.
I struck out.
Apparently, maybe you Wrote some that stuff yourself.:shocked:

Oh, my gosh :shocked:

The horrors of free-thinking!

lol .. thanks

 

[heyheybooboo]

Updated the OP - Reuters did an article and 'fact-check' on Governor Palin's pipeline