newsminer.com

The possibility of a gas pipeline jointly owned by TransCanada and some or all of the major North Slope producers has been out there for months. TransCanada formally invited partners in its AGIA application, the producers have suggested they would welcome a collaboration, and Palin’s administration is open to having the parties work together.

But would the producers join TransCanada’s project or would TransCanada join the producers’ project? And does it matter?

Here’s what the companies have said. TransCanada, in its application under AGIA, stated that it would welcome project partners and offer an equity stake to companies that agree to ship a certain volume of gas on the pipe. Because the major producers control the known gas reserves, that probably means BP, ConocoPhillips, and Exxon Mobil. “We’ve had discussions with them for several years and are certainly open to continuing those discussions now,” TransCanada’s Tony Palmer told me last week.

Conoco and BP, which are working on their own “Denali” pipeline project, have said they’re open to teaming up with a third party like TransCanada. “We’re more than happy to have TransCanada joining our project,” ConocoPhillips’ VP Brian Wenzel told me.

Whether either party would join the other’s project is another question.

TransCanada can’t, at least for now, because of the commitments it has already made under AGIA, including the commitment to push ahead through project permitting process should lawmakers approve the state license. “To go outside of any structure would require the state to be aligned with that interest,” Palmer said. (AGIA would allow TransCanada to modify its project or drop its obligations with the state’s permission.)

BP and Conoco aren’t saying whether they would consider joining TransCanada’s project under AGIA. “We have got our own project underway,” said BP spokesman Steve Rinehart. Business talks between BP and others are “kind of our business,” he added.

The options for collaboration depend on lawmakers’ decision on the TransCanada proposal. If lawmakers do give a license to TransCanada, either collaboration could potentially happen (with the state’s permission). If they don’t award the license, the only option would be for TransCanada to join the Denali project.

In the findings and recommendation released yesterday, Palin’s administration warns against relying on the producers’ promise of a pipe and argues that only the AGIA process will ensure that a pipeline is built in a way that protects Alaska’s interests -- with reasonable tariffs and open access to all producers, among other things. (It’s important to note that AGIA doesn’t actually require TransCanada to build the line.)

In an attached analysis, the hired consultant Black & Veatch argues it’s critical to proceed under AGIA even if the ultimate goal is a collaboration (Black and Veatch suggests it is). The analysis states that the Denali project could really gum up TransCanada’s plans, but it recommends lawmakers proceed with TransCanada anyway.

“TransCanada’s prospects for success and the state’s reasons for proceeding with AGIA at this point are based on the expectation that TransCanada and Denali will eventually merge into a ‘settlement’ project,” it reads. “It is reasonable to expect that TransCanada’s project will have many elements that are attractive to the Denali sponsors, and that those sponsors will want to integrate into a project that combines the best ideas from both projects.”

“The mechanics, timing and certainty of a settlement between TransCanada and Denali at this early stage are less important than the recognition that for a settlement to occur, AGIA must proceed by awarding a license,” it goes on. “Time must be given to shippers and regulators alike to learn whether the best of both projects can be combined into a superior solution. Absent a licensee, the development dynamic changes materially and raises greater uncertainties for Alaskan gas reserves.”

In other words, the pressure would be off the producers. Staying under AGIA, on the other hand, would allow the state to maintain control over everything from expanding the pipeline in the future to adjusting the state’s production tax to make the project more attractive to shippers.

In a sense, it’s something of a gamble. If the state goes with TransCanada and the producers keep pushing Denali, the producers could ultimately boycott the TransCanada pipe, the project could fall apart, and the state could be out a few hundred million dollars.

But Black & Veatch argues there are good reasons the state will win and the producers won’t boycott. First, TransCanada would bring positive things to the project, such as a jump-start on permitting in Canada. (Remember that TransCanada wouldn’t be able to join the producers’ project because of its AGIA commitments.) Second, the state’s commitments under AGIA would “presumably” block it from negotiating the fiscal terms BP and ConocoPhillips want for their pipeline project. (When I asked Wenzel why he wanted to collaborate outside AGIA rather than under it, he said AGIA imposed too many constraints and didn’t provide enough fiscal stability.)

And what about Exxon?

Here’s the statement I got. “We are keen to move forward with an Alaska gas pipeline and continue to evaluate all options, including the State of Alaska's consideration of a project under the AGIA process. Advancing as gas pipeline is important to ExxonMobil. It would increase our worldwide production by 10 percent.”