Archaic Federal Law Keeps Alaskans From Using Abundant Natural Gas Reserves

Alaska is an energy behemoth with massive reserves of oil, natural gas, and petroleum. It also, oddly, faces a looming natural gas shortage—not good for a state where half of electricity production depends on the stuff. The problem is that most natural gas deposits are far from population centers and pipelines to transport the gas don’t yet exist and may never be built. So, to get gas to Alaskans, you need to transport it by ship. But federal law requires that only U.S.-flagged liquid natural gas (LNG) carriers be used, and there aren’t any.

Vast Energy Reserves

Alaska really is a powerhouse. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the state’s “proved crude oil reserves—about 3.2 billion barrels at the beginning of 2022—are the fourth-largest in the nation.” It’s “recoverable coal reserves are estimated at 2.8 billion tons, about 1% of the U.S. total.” And, most impressively, Alaska’s “proved natural gas reserves—about 100 trillion cubic feet—rank third among the states.”

With that much natural gas to draw on, it’s no wonder the state gets about half of its total electricity from generators powered by natural gas, with roughly three-quarters of power to the main Railbelt grid coming from gas. Nevertheless, the lights could soon flicker—and a lot of people’s furnaces and stoves sputter—because of lack of access to the vast natural gas reserves.

“Alaska lawmakers are searching for solutions to a looming shortage of natural gas that threatens power and heating for much of the state’s population,” Alaska Public Media reported in February. “The state’s largest gas utility is warning that shortfalls could come as soon as next year – and imports are years off.”

But Not Where It’s Needed

It turns out that the gas Alaskans use comes not from the vast North Slope reserves, but from wells in the Cook Inlet. Most companies say it’s not worth their time to drill there, and so sold their leases to Hilcorp over 10 years ago. Hilcorp is a Texas-based company that specializes in getting the most out of declining oil and gas wells—and the existing Cook Inlet wells are decades old and long past their peak. The company expects to produce about 55 billion cubic feet of gas this year but predicts production will fall to 32 billion cubic feet in 2029.

If few companies want to drill more wells in the Cook Inlet, it makes sense to draw on the natural gas in another part of Alaska, the North Slope. In 2020, federal and state officials approved a pipeline to transport gas from the North Slope to the Kenai Peninsula for local use as well as export. But building another pipeline across rugged Alaska is a massive undertaking and the project has struggled to find backers. It won’t be ready for years, if ever.

That leaves transportation by sea. The gas could be transported from the North Slope by LNG carrier and offloaded in the populated areas where it’s needed. But there’s a hitch.

No Ships for You

A century ago, Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (better known as the Jones Act) to prop up the country’s shipping industry. The law “among other things, requires shipping between U.S. ports be conducted by US-flag ships,” according to Cornell Law Schools’s Legal Information Institute. The ships must also be built here. So, to move natural gas from one part of Alaska to another, you need American LNG carriers. And here we find another shortage.

“LNG carriers have not been built in the United States since before 1980, and no LNG carriers are currently registered under the U.S. flag,” the U.S. Government Accountability Office found in 2015. And while there’s lots of demand for more LNG carriers for the export market, not just for Alaska, “U.S. carriers would cost about two to three times as much as similar carriers built in Korean shipyards and would be more expensive to operate.”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection did make an exception to let foreign LNG carriers transport U.S. natural gas to Puerto Rico earlier this year, but only because the gas was first piped to Mexico before being loaded onto ships. Isolated Alaska doesn’t have that option.

The feds are diligent about prosecuting Jones Act violations, too. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice imposed a $10 million penalty on an energy exploration and production company for transporting a drill rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska’s Cook Inlet in a foreign-flagged vessel. That company’s intention was to bring more natural gas to market in Alaska.

Given the law’s strict terms and the government’s enthusiastic enforcement, “it will be perfectly legal for ships from other countries to pick up liquid natural gas from the new production facility in northern Alaska—as long as they don’t stop at any other American ports to unload,” Reason’s Eric Boehm noted in 2020.

When Boehm wrote, the century-old protectionist law contributed to high prices for Alaskans. Now it may actually precipitate a crisis by making it effectively illegal for energy companies to ship abundant natural gas from one part of the state to eager customers in another.

A Law In Need of Repeal or Relief

In 2018, the Cato Institute’s Colin Grabow, Inu Manak, and Daniel J. Ikenson delved into the damage done by the Jones Act in terms of higher costs and distorted markets, even as it fails to keep the domestic shipping industry from withering. The authors called for the law’s repeal. Failing that, they recommended the federal government “grant a permanent exemption of the Jones Act for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam.” These isolated jurisdictions suffer the most from Jones Act protectionism and would benefit from greater leeway for foreign shipping.

Until that happens, Alaskans may suffer from a natural gas shortage while having plenty of the stuff to sell to the rest of the world.

– J.D.

Related Topics:#JDTuccille AlaskaEnergy The Rattler

Up Next

Ottawa’s intentional destruction of western wealth

Don't Miss

Recovered ‘brain dead’ man dancing at sister’s wedding reminds us organ donors are sometimes alive

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

‘Don’t Write About The Laptop’: Two Reporters Allege Outlets Killed Stories About Bidens

Business / 12 hours ago

Taxpayers launching court fight against undemocratic capital gains tax hike

conflict / 12 hours ago

Trump tells World Economic Forum ‘time to end’ war in Ukraine

Economy

Trump’s Wakeup Call to Canada – Oil & Gas is Critical to our Economy

Published on January 24, 2025

Todayville

From EnergyNow.Ca

By Jim Warren

On the bright side, at least President Donald Trump’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian oil and gas, might have alerted some Central Canadians to the critical importance of oil and gas to the national economy. Trump’s tariff pronouncements may also have forced the Laurentian Elite to rethink the wisdom of allowing anarchy to reign in our immigration system and border management.

Any nation hoping to be a serious player in the areas of international trade and diplomacy needs to meet several critical criteria. Without them a country can have difficulty marketing its goods and services to the world and in retaining meaningful economic and political sovereignty. One of the key criteria is for a country to have a good measure of control over its borders. But there are other elements critical to having effective sovereignty and independence. Having access to versatile, readily transportable energy commodities like oil and gas is one of those essentials. Accordingly, oil and gas are considered strategically important industries.

Lacking any of the major building blocks of strategic economic sovereignty, like the steel and aluminum industries and a thriving manufacturing sector, as well as highly developed transportation sector and the energy industries needed to support all the other sectors can leave a country vulnerable to domination by others. The vulnerabilities can lead to economic and political crises for a country during trade wars, international disputes leading to trade sanctions and embargoes, shooting wars and big natural disasters. A lack of strong trade and military alliances can make matters even worse.

It’s not like there wasn’t a mountain of evidence underlining the strategic importance of oil and gas in the last few years. How smart was it for Angela Merkel to allow Russia, a state run by a psychopath and his team of criminal oligarchs, to control a major portion of its energy supplies? The Ukraine gets it. After its war with Russia began, the Ukrainian government allowed Russian gas to be piped across its territory to Eastern Europe for nearly two years. This was because they realized messing with a commodity critical to bordering states such as Hungary, Slovakia and Romania was politically hazardous.

It is true that a country can still have a thriving economy even if it is missing one or two items from the basket of strategically important industries. Singapore, for example, needs to import fossil fuel but is still considered one of Southeast Asia’s economic tigers. But this is only possible because Singapore is so good at most everything else. It has several other economic engines that perform exceptionally well.

Looking back several decades reminds us that Japan risked entering a World War to obtain the petroleum they needed. To get it, the Japanese concluded they needed to conquer parts of Indonesia. (Similarly they wanted Southeast Asia for its rubber.) They knew these were actions the US wouldn’t tolerate, but they decided they had to do them anyway.

While we’re on the topic of World War II, it is instructive to recall Hitler fought it with one hand tied behind his back. Germany had no oil of its own and gasoline refined from coal and the oil available from their Romanian ally were never enough. That’s why the German’s placed such great hopes in capturing Russia’s Caspian oil fields in 1943. Similarly, Hitler invaded Norway to ensure access to Swedish iron ore—another strategic commodity Germany lacked.

Canada’s oil revenues along with the taxes and royalties collected from those revenues are derived almost entirely from the oil we export to the US. Our export revenues for 2022, following the worst of the covid years, were $123 billion. They accounted for 15.8% of all Canada’s exports and 6.6% of GDP. The following year saw exceptionally high oil prices globally. That year the value of oil Canada’s oil production hit $139 billion and accounted for 7.1% of GDP. Pull even half of those revenues out of the Canadian economy for very long and we’re in economic depression territory.

So, thanks for the wakeup call president Trump. The fact Trump has indicated he will postpone his final decision until February 1, is of some comfort. Danielle Smith has met with him at Mar-a-Lago to make the case against tariffs on Canadian crude. Smith is among the most knowledgeable and capable people there are when it comes to oil and gas production and trade. We couldn’t hope for a better advocate for the producing provinces. She’s certainly a cut above Justin Trudeau and anyone else in his cabinet. Let’s hope Smith she managed to convince Trump how imposing tariffs would harm the economies of both countries.

There is an obvious way to prevent being in this sort of situation in the future – diversify our export opportunities by building more pipelines to tidewater. In my last column I focused on the difficulties involved in getting a pipeline built to the Atlantic coast. The challenges identified focused on the barriers thrown up by Quebec’s politicians and environmentalists. Trump’s ongoing tariff pronouncements suggest it would be in Canada’s national strategic interest to use whatever legal measures are required to sweep those barriers aside in both Quebec and British Columbia to get new tidewater pipelines built.

There is plenty the federal government can do to override the demands of municipalities, special interest groups and provincial governments in support of high national purposes and in emergencies. Section 91 of the constitution gives parliament broad, albeit somewhat vague, powers to do what needs to be done “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada” in all matters not exclusively the jurisdiction of the provinces. And, you would think that if the heavy hand of the Emergencies Act can be used to prevent horn honking and traffic snarls in Ottawa, it could be employed to prevent the environmentally sanctimonious from blocking projects critical to our economic and political sovereignty. Of course doing any of this will require voting the Liberals out of office.

Sorry premier Ford, retaliatory tariffs and export taxes can’t be the only tools employed; especially when they cause self-inflicted wounds. Unfortunately, until we have more export opportunities for oil and gas we may need to limit our counter attacks on Americans to misleading travel directions and poor restaurant service.

Energy

Next prime minister should swiftly dismantle Ottawa’s anti-energy agenda

Published on January 23, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Justin Trudeau’s imminent exit from office may mark the beginning of the end of a 10-year war on Canada’s energy sector, and by extension, Canada’s economy.

Canada is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, currently supplying 6 per cent of global production. Canada is the fifth-largest producer of natural gas, supplying 5 per cent of global demand. The energy sector (oil, gas, electricity) constitutes more than 10 per cent of Canada’s total gross domestic product (GDP). In 2023, the latest year of available data, the energy sector provided, directly and indirectly, almost 700,000 jobs or 3.5 per cent of all jobs in Canada. And Canadian energy exports totalling $200 billion comprised 28 per cent of all Canadian exported goods.

But however vast and vital Canada’s energy sector is our wellbeing, Prime Minister Trudeau worked tirelessly to restrain, restrict, diminish and ultimately “phase out” Canada’s fossil fuel industries. Here are some of the highlights of his war on Canada’s energy sector.

In 2017, Trudeau introduced Bill C-48, which restricts oil tankers off Canada’s west coast and limits the ability of Canada’s oilsands sector to export product to new markets, keeping Canada’s energy resources trapped in a discount-price U.S. market. Also in 2017, much to the fury of many Albertans, Trudeau announced his intention to phase out oilsands production, the foundation of Alberta’s prosperity.

In 2018, Trudeau introduced Bill C-69, which tightened Canada’s environmental assessment process for major infrastructure projects and made the process of obtaining government permission for major energy projects more costly, time-consuming and arbitrary, thus increasing uncertainty across the energy sector. And he introduced the carbon tax despite strenuous opposition by Canada’s energy sector and energy-producing provinces.

In 2020, Trudeau launched his broadest and most intense regulatory crusade against Canada’s energy sector, introducing Bill C-12, which committed Canada to reach “net-zero” emissions of greenhouse gasses by 2050. Net-zero means Canada cannot emit more greenhouse gases via energy production and consumption than is taken out of the air by natural processes and the ecosystem. This would require vastly reduced production and consumption of fossil fuels in Canada, with consequences for the energy sector’s productivity and employment potential moving toward 2050.

In 2023, Trudeau attacked fossil fuel use in the transportation sector by mandating that all new cars sales be electric vehicles by 2035. And he released draft “clean electricity regulations” to phase out the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation by the year 2050.

During his time as prime minister, Trudeau attacked Canada’s energy sector, with eliminationist language and onerous regulations meant to essentially phaseout a major supplier of economic productivity and employment in Canada, to the great detriment of Canadians.

Hopefully, the next prime minister will reject Trudeau’s anti-energy agenda and have the will and ability to rescind the many damaging laws and regulations that that the Trudeau government has inflicted on a vital sector of the Canadian economy.