newsminer.com

Of all the concerns lawmakers have over TransCanada's pipeline proposal, one of the biggest is that TransCanada doesn't have any North Slope gas to ship. The success of the project relies on the willingness of North Slope producers to use the pipeline or the ability of the state to force the producers to use it.

In February, a long list of Democratic lawmakers sent letters to the three major producers asking them to commit to ship their gas “at regulated and approved shipping rates” through a gas pipeline.

“. . . [W]e fear that absent that commitment, a pipeline project will continue to be delayed for another generation,” they wrote.

It was a somewhat loose request and the kind of question I can’t imagine any company wanting to answer. What are those regulated shipping rates? What’s the market for natural gas?

But last week, one producer did respond, and quite politely. Exxon Mobil’s Craig Haymes wrote that his company “would be willing to sell North Slope gas at the wellhead or to ship gas through the pipeline on commercially reasonable terms and conditions.”

“Not necessarily bad,” Rep. Les Gara, one of the lawmakers, said of the response.

“It depends on what they mean by ‘commercially reasonable,’” he added.

But then, what more could one expect?

In their letter, lawmakers wrote that they believe gas leaseholders are legally obliged to ship their gas once a viable pipeline is built. The letter invited some kind of response from the companies, but it didn’t ask for one specifically, and Exxon didn’t offer one.

Lawmakers often express concerns about litigating to get the gas, or having a “successful open season,” although they usually argue that litigation would take years, not necessarily that it wouldn’t work (that producers aren’t obliged to ship their gas).

In any case, Gov. Palin and lawmakers tried to avoid litigation by including some “carrots” in AGIA. Leaseholders that commit at the first open season to using the pipeline get 10 years of tax stability (arguably) and valuable modifications to their royalty agreements.

The gov and lawmakers also hoped that pressure from shareholders and elected officials would serve as “sticks” for companies that refused to participate in a viable project.

And they stipulated in AGIA that a company had to keep pushing its project even if leaseholders didn’t sign up at first. As the company continued through the permitting process, some argued, it would be harder for leaseholders to reasonably say No.

Now those sticks seem to be dwindling. Lawmakers seem wary of pressuring the producers to participate in a third-part line, especially now that two of the producers, ConocoPhillips and BP, are pursuing their own project.

BP’s Steve Rinehart told me today his company hadn’t replied to the lawmakers’ letter and wasn’t planning to, but had already made its position clear publicly.

If the producers and TransCanada both hold open seasons for their pipeline projects, he said, “We’ll ship our gas on the one that offers the best commercial terms.”

(Reading between the lines, somewhat less of a commitment than Exxon’s.)

Gara’s concern is that the producers, by refusing to commit to TransCanada’s commercial terms, end up in a position where they can set their own commercial terms (and make them better than TransCanada’s).

AGIA spells out how shipping tariffs will be set, how expansions will be handled, and so on. A producer pipeline built outside of AGIA wouldn’t have to meet those requirements.

“The underlying concern,” said Gara, “is whether the producers are going to block any line in order to get the concessions they want.”

Then again, maybe Palin won’t even pick TransCanada.