Congressional Actions Could Cost Americans $20 Billion Dollars

Blocking the Development of Northern Pipeline Route

'Against Interests of American People'



Apr 08, 2002, 01:00 ET from Arctic Resources Company

    WASHINGTON, April 8 /PRNewswire/ -- As the U.S. Senate returns this week
 to continue debate on the Energy Bill (S.517), attention will be focused on
 the ramifications of their controversial decision to ban a Northern route for
 a pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to markets
 in the lower-48 states.  Last month, the Senate adopted an amendment that
 would mandate construction of a gas pipeline through Alaska, even though Sen.
 Murkowski declared that the pipeline was uneconomic today.
     Currently, building a natural gas pipeline to go through Alaska is not
 economic, thus considerations are being given to providing tax credits and
 other subsidies for the development of the pipeline.  Rather than letting the
 market and established regulatory and international trade procedures determine
 the appropriate route, Congress is dictating what pipeline is developed and
 what route it will take.  "History has shown that when politicians try to
 force an uneconomic decision, the project is usually never built," said
 Forrest Hoglund, President and CEO of Arctic Resources Company (ARC).
     There are indications that a tax credit or other subsidies may be offered
 in the Senate this week.  The measures could contain subsidies including a tax
 credit to create a price floor for Alaskan natural gas that would flow through
 the pipeline.  This could cost American taxpayers more than $20 billion over
 15 years.  "When has the federal government ever been effective in trying to
 set the price of any commodity?  This politically motivated, arbitrary
 decision could be very harmful to our economy and the environment.  Short-term
 Alaskan political issues should not determine how the largest new supply of
 natural gas is brought to market," Hoglund said.
     Other more efficient, cost-effective and environmentally friendly
 alternatives to delivering vast quantities of natural gas from Alaska and
 Canada to U.S. markets are simply being blocked.  "Our approach, the Northern
 Route, would cost $7.8 billion and would transport 5.2 billion cubic feet of
 natural gas per day to American markets without the need for government
 subsidies.  The alternative, the Alaskan route, would cost $10 billion and
 would scar over 900 miles of Alaskan mountain ranges and cannot be built
 without a subsidy.  In addition, a separate $3.5 billion line would have to be
 built along the Mackenzie River to market 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of
 Canadian gas.  The two pipelines would be twice the distance and cost
 essentially twice as much as the one pipeline option.  It just doesn't make
 sense and can't stand the light of day."  Hoglund added, "The U.S. taxpayers
 and natural gas consumers interests are being sacrificed for who knows what
 political motives."
 
     About Arctic Resources Company
     Arctic Resources Company (ARC) is a special purpose company formed to
 manage, in a unique way, the development of North America's most important
 energy project.  ARC believes that North America must expeditiously access
 Northern Canadian and Alaska natural gas reserves in a fashion that makes
 environmental, economic and political sense and includes Aboriginal and
 Alaskan Native groups upfront and in a meaningful way.  ARC believes that the
 complex issues involved in the creation of a pipeline to transport Alaskan and
 Canadian natural gas to the lower 48 states is a complex issue requiring a new
 approach to avoid past mistakes.
 
                      MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT - Click Here
                http://tbutton.prnewswire.com/prn/11690X67047756
 
 

SOURCE Arctic Resources Company
    WASHINGTON, April 8 /PRNewswire/ -- As the U.S. Senate returns this week
 to continue debate on the Energy Bill (S.517), attention will be focused on
 the ramifications of their controversial decision to ban a Northern route for
 a pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to markets
 in the lower-48 states.  Last month, the Senate adopted an amendment that
 would mandate construction of a gas pipeline through Alaska, even though Sen.
 Murkowski declared that the pipeline was uneconomic today.
     Currently, building a natural gas pipeline to go through Alaska is not
 economic, thus considerations are being given to providing tax credits and
 other subsidies for the development of the pipeline.  Rather than letting the
 market and established regulatory and international trade procedures determine
 the appropriate route, Congress is dictating what pipeline is developed and
 what route it will take.  "History has shown that when politicians try to
 force an uneconomic decision, the project is usually never built," said
 Forrest Hoglund, President and CEO of Arctic Resources Company (ARC).
     There are indications that a tax credit or other subsidies may be offered
 in the Senate this week.  The measures could contain subsidies including a tax
 credit to create a price floor for Alaskan natural gas that would flow through
 the pipeline.  This could cost American taxpayers more than $20 billion over
 15 years.  "When has the federal government ever been effective in trying to
 set the price of any commodity?  This politically motivated, arbitrary
 decision could be very harmful to our economy and the environment.  Short-term
 Alaskan political issues should not determine how the largest new supply of
 natural gas is brought to market," Hoglund said.
     Other more efficient, cost-effective and environmentally friendly
 alternatives to delivering vast quantities of natural gas from Alaska and
 Canada to U.S. markets are simply being blocked.  "Our approach, the Northern
 Route, would cost $7.8 billion and would transport 5.2 billion cubic feet of
 natural gas per day to American markets without the need for government
 subsidies.  The alternative, the Alaskan route, would cost $10 billion and
 would scar over 900 miles of Alaskan mountain ranges and cannot be built
 without a subsidy.  In addition, a separate $3.5 billion line would have to be
 built along the Mackenzie River to market 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of
 Canadian gas.  The two pipelines would be twice the distance and cost
 essentially twice as much as the one pipeline option.  It just doesn't make
 sense and can't stand the light of day."  Hoglund added, "The U.S. taxpayers
 and natural gas consumers interests are being sacrificed for who knows what
 political motives."
 
     About Arctic Resources Company
     Arctic Resources Company (ARC) is a special purpose company formed to
 manage, in a unique way, the development of North America's most important
 energy project.  ARC believes that North America must expeditiously access
 Northern Canadian and Alaska natural gas reserves in a fashion that makes
 environmental, economic and political sense and includes Aboriginal and
 Alaskan Native groups upfront and in a meaningful way.  ARC believes that the
 complex issues involved in the creation of a pipeline to transport Alaskan and
 Canadian natural gas to the lower 48 states is a complex issue requiring a new
 approach to avoid past mistakes.
 
                      MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT - Click Here
                http://tbutton.prnewswire.com/prn/11690X67047756
 
 SOURCE  Arctic Resources Company