Representatives from British Petroleum presented one of the proposed natural gas pipeline plans to UAF community members Oct. 31.

"The Alaska Gas Pipeline is the number one issue in the political arena, the number one issue on the economic job front," said BP representative Gus Gustafson. "It is the number one issue in Alaska for a number of reasons."

The plan involves building a pipeline to transport gas from the North Slope to Chicago. The gas would be taken from the ground on the North Slope, where a gas treatment plant would have to be built to extract the carbon dioxide and chill the gas, Gustafson said.

From the North Slope, gas would be transported through the pipeline to Alberta via the Alaska Highway and a yet-to-be-determined remainder of the route, Gustafson said.

According to Gustafson, the natural gas liquids (NGLs) would most likely be extracted in Alberta and the remainder of the gas would be sent to Chicago. The NGLs would be transported separately to market separately.

NGLs are used for polypropylene, petrochemical plants, propane, and other uses. Extracting them in Alberta would eliminate the need to build another plant to do so, Gustavson said.

Not everyone agreed that the gas needed to go to Chicago, or even Alberta, though.

"In the long run, maybe we shouldn't ship all of it south," said Ron Johnson, a UAF professor of mechanical engineering. "Let's save some to build a petroleum industry in Alaska."

Gustafson said that whether or not Alberta was the mid-point was still up to be reconsidered based on further studies.

Another plan on the table, sponsored by the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, is the All-Alaska Gasline, which proposes a different route for sending the gas to Chicago, and involves boats in addition to pipes, said Pat Young, an Alaska Gas representative

Young called that proposal far less economically sound than the Alaska Gas Pipeline.

Gustavson said chilling the pipeline would enable it to be buried under three-to-four feet of topsoil without wrecking the permafrost, a more economical option than raising it above ground.

The pipeline would be raised in places where it could not be buried, such as some river crossings, fault zones, and geotechnical hazard areas. Those instances would be less than about 2 percent of the total length of the pipeline, Gustafson said.

According to Gustafson, the pipeline would be approximately 52 inches in diameter, and a pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch.

The pipeline's capacity would be expandable by compressing the gas more frequently along the pipeline if more gas is found on the North Slope than is currently expected, Gustafson said.

Under this proposal, which producers and Gov. Frank Murkowski have backed, the pipeline's timeline is at least 10 years to the first gas from the time the project starts, with another year or so before gas would begin flowing at full capacity, Gustafson said.

"There are too many factors that we have no control over to promise a finishing date," he said.

According to Gustafson, infrastructure updates are one such factor. The project would require $435 million in infrastructure updates in Alaska alone. Gustafson said that those updates are one of the reasons that the project needs to be started as soon as possible.

Given the proposal's skeleton, the plan's proponents still have to convince Alaskans that the project is worth the infrastructure changes.

"One of the most obvious benefits to Alaska is the $3 billion per annum the state would gain because of its fair share of reserves," said Young, the Alaska Gas representative.

The state's spending is expected to increase beyond it's means in the coming years, but the pipeline would help stabilize the revenue and spending so that the two more or less matched each other, Young continued.

Other benefits Young pointed out were the state's right to about 20 percent ownership of the pipeline itself, in-state use of gas, and access to pipeline for explorers.

"There's a big concern, and people talking about will the producers provide gas for in-state use," said John Ringstad, a BP representative. "If the state owns 20 percent, the existing in-state demand will be less than half of what the state has to sell."

According to Young, Alaska's gas needs would be met with four offtake points. One would be at Yukon River, one at Delta Junction, one in Fairbanks, and the fourth at an undetermined location.

Whether or not attendees managed to draw their own conclusions about the proposal, they agreed that it was full of information.

"The presentation gave me a lot to think about," said UAF student Oliver Fleshman, 26. "I don't know that it swayed me, but it was nice to hear about the gas line, and to know what is going on."