Frank Murkowski administration and the 2004-2006 Stranded Gas Development Act
negotiations made "fiscal certainty" a dirty word in Alaska politics, a gas line project still needs fiscal stability.
The second issue on the agenda would change the state's Stranded Gas Development Act
to give the governor the right to negotiate a long-term freeze on oil taxes.
As of June 2005, the State of Alaska had not concluded negotiations with potential project sponsors under the Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act
(Stranded Gas Act), which allows the state to negotiate fiscal terms (e.g., taxes and royalties) with project sponsors.4 In addition to being approved by the state, prospective project sponsors must, under the federal Pipeline Act, (1) conduct a study of gas consumption needs and prospective points of delivery within the State of Alaska and (2) hold an open season allowing potential customers to compete for and acquire capacity on the proposed pipeline.
The two parties signed a memorandum of understanding which provides that TransCanada will make an application under the state's Stranded Gas Development Act
, and that the state will resume processing of TransCanada's long-pending application of a right-of-way lease for the project.
If negotiations continue under the Stranded Gas Development Act, Irwin questioned in the memo "...what liability might I or my staff personally face and what damage could be done to the state should I sign a preliminary fiscal interest findings and determination under the Act that concludes Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson gas is "stranded gas" when the available data indicates that it is not.
Irwin also noted that the Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act (ASGDA) calls for a contract that does not significantly alter taxation of existing oil infrastructure and production, an area that the administration has for a long time "resisted the producers' invitation" to include in gas pipeline negotiations.
has filed an application under the Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act
. The company will now proceed with processing its application with the State of Alaska for right-of-way across state lands for the Alaska Highway pipeline project.
With three separate entities submitting formal gas pipeline development proposals to the state of Alaska under the Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act
in 2004 and 2005, the odds seemed to be in favor for the start of a public and legislative review process of a negotiated contract.
House Bill 393, also known as the Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act
, gives state officials power to restructure taxes to make developing a natural gas pipeline economically viable.