- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: No Mention of Alaska LNG
Posted on 2/19/25 at 8:42 am to ChasinTails
Posted on 2/19/25 at 8:42 am to ChasinTails
quote:
The backbone of the Alaska LNG Project is an 807-mile, 42-inch diameter mainline pipeline, including an offshore pipeline section crossing Cook Inlet. With a daily capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet, multiple compressor stations along the pipeline will help carry natural gas from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska.
What is the likelihood of this actually happening?
Depends on the cost and how long the construction time is. Obviously if it is insanely expensive then it will not happen. If it is reasonably priced and can be built while Trump or his successor which is hopefully a republican is in the WH and the Governor of Alaska is a republican then there is a good chance it is built. If a democrat wins in 2028 or becomes governor of Alaska and the pipeline is still under construction the permits will be pulled.
2
Posted on 2/19/25 at 11:02 am to jeffsdad
quote:
A related question and not wanting to begin a new topic: Has Trump decided anything on the pipeline from Canada that joey stopped day one of his "administration".
With Capline reversed it's all but tits on a boar hog
Posted on 2/19/25 at 11:05 am to redstick13
quote:
Didn't Trump impose tariffs on Canada or is oil from Canada not part of it?
10% on oil, but that would likely be eaten by producers in Canada if the pause is rescinded. Canada cannot sell to anyone else due several pipelines come to the US pipeline system. Two go to the West Coast, the smaller one feeds refineries in the State of Washington. The new one feeds the international market and California. The crude is quite similar to the that from rapidly depleting California reserves, both heavy crude with high sulfur, though California's is a little heavier.
This post was edited on 2/19/25 at 11:08 am
Posted on 2/19/25 at 11:17 am to WeeWee
quote:
Depends on the cost and how long the construction time is. Obviously if it is insanely expensive then it will not happen. If it is reasonably priced and can be built while Trump or his successor which is hopefully a republican is in the WH and the Governor of Alaska is a republican then there is a good chance it is built. If a democrat wins in 2028 or becomes governor of Alaska and the pipeline is still under construction the permits will be pulled.
Natural gas is already being produced on the North Slope but is reinjected into oil/gas bearing formations. No real additional cost for the wells. The terminal site has been purchased and at least design work already begun for the new liquefaction lines needed. 40+ year supply should easily pay off any debt. LNG tankers to Japan and Korea is also cheap due a week transit time. That's a lot less expensive than from the Gulf Coast and through the Panama Canal.
The question I have is are there any NGL's (ethane, propane, butane, pentanes +) in the produced gas and whether are not this is rejected and put back into the formation on the North Slope along with any H2S and CO2. With North Slope crude being sour, there obviously H2S to be removed up there along with stated CO2. A lot of natural gas has CO2 in it. I looked at a plant near Canton, TX which was designed for around 25% CO2 content. I forget the exact percentage but it was that much maybe more. It was also high in H2S, with enough produced to put in a sulfuric acid plant and a shortline RR to ship the sulfuric acid.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 11:19 am to WeeWee
quote:
What is the likelihood of this actually happening?
Its been discussed for over a decade and has gone through numerous route changes, etc.
We spend more on studies and consultants than we do on actual construction, it seems.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 12:37 pm to CitizenK
quote:
Depends on the cost and how long the construction time is. Obviously if it is insanely expensive then it will not happen. If it is reasonably priced and can be built while Trump or his successor which is hopefully a republican is in the WH and the Governor of Alaska is a republican then there is a good chance it is built. If a democrat wins in 2028 or becomes governor of Alaska and the pipeline is still under construction the permits will be pulled.
Natural gas is already being produced on the North Slope but is reinjected into oil/gas bearing formations. No real additional cost for the wells. The terminal site has been purchased and at least design work already begun for the new liquefaction lines needed. 40+ year supply should easily pay off any debt. LNG tankers to Japan and Korea is also cheap due a week transit time. That's a lot less expensive than from the Gulf Coast and through the Panama Canal.
If they can pay off the debt then the main challenge would be getting the plant and pipeline built before another liberal administration comes into office and pulls the permits. This is probably a stupid question is the ice in the sea lanes to the North Slope too thick for ice breaking LNG carriers like Norway and Russia have?
Posted on 2/19/25 at 5:10 pm to WeeWee
quote:
If they can pay off the debt then the main challenge would be getting the plant and pipeline built before another liberal administration comes into office and pulls the permits. This is probably a stupid question is the ice in the sea lanes to the North Slope too thick for ice breaking LNG carriers like Norway and Russia have?
Near Valdez an ice free port. The pipeline to be built will parallel the Alaskan Pipeline for much of the way then split off and parallel a highway to Kenai. The large cryogenic tanks will remain along with the dock with cryogenic pipes and loading arms to connect to LNG ships. They will add another berth so that two ships can be alongside at the same time, Also three liquefaction process lines each 4 time the capacity of the one installed in 1969 at the plant to replace it. The liquefaction process lines cool the gas in stages until it becomes cold enough to be liquified. It's the three already existing cryogenic tanks awaiting transfer to LNG carriers (ships)
This post was edited on 2/19/25 at 6:03 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News