View non-flash version
www.marinelink.com 25Loading (STL) Buoys and Icebreaking Offshore Facilities exist. Tunnel Boring Machines (TBM?s) can tunnel the sub- sea ß oor, eliminating many environmen- tal impacts, and, the development can be done at a considerably lower cost than a $70 billion dollar large-diameter line proposed from the North Slope to Valdez or Anchorage.In October 2012, The TransCanada Corporation proposed a rerouted project to Anchorage and detailed it to Alaska?s Governor Parnell. The update reportedly claims it will cost about $70 billion for a North Slope gas treatment, conditioning plants, and 800-mile pipeline to South-central Alaska including a LNG storage facility and tanker terminal to export 15 to 18 million metric tons of LNG annu-ally. The 800-mile pipeline is only one el-ement of total cost, as an over the life of the pipeline to a southern tidewater, numerous costs will be imposed: A per mile fee for maintenance, remediation, etc., will be paid to the pipeline?s owners as rent for the line and all that will far exceed the cost anything anticipated for a three to Þ ve mile sub-sea ß oor pipeline to Arctic tidewater. In every scenario, ships must be built. A Q-max sized LNG ship at 1132 x 177 ft. carries about 266,000 cu. m. tons of LNG and costs $200-300 million to build To export LNG from the North Slope, 10 to 15 purpose-built ships must be constructed for between $2b and 4.5b. Even with that cost added to the North Slope export facilities, the esti-mated development should be $50b less than crossing Alaska to Anchorage, and the timeline is compressed.Most importantly for Alaskans, the dif- ferential capital cost between proposed pipelines going south, plus facilities and ships and, TASR North Slope LNG ex- port will be signiÞ cant. On the surface it is $50b, ample capital to fund both in-state domestic gas heating distribu-tion systems as well as, a full spectrum of in-state industrial developments when practical and proÞ table. So, does the TASR development bene- Þ t Alaskans more than 800-mile pipeline south? In a word, yes. Alaska?s leaders say Alaska?s resources belong to ?us,? the people. However in reality, Alaska?s resources belong to the State and the State is mandated to manage them for the highest beneÞ t of the Alaskan peo- ple. If that is correct, then producing re-source revenues for less cost on a shorter schedule brings the highest beneÞ t.MR #6 (18-25).indd 25MR #6 (18-25).indd 255/30/2013 12:11:55 PM5/30/2013 12:11:55 PM
