Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/28/2014 05:30 PM Senate LEGISLATIVE BUDGET & AUDIT
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Natural Gas Market Outlook & Fundamentals of the Lng Business | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
January 28, 2014
5:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna Fairclough, Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer
Senator Donald Olson
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Andy Josephson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Vice Chair
Representative Scott Kawasaki (alternate)
Representative Bill Stoltze (alternate)
Representative Kurt Olson
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Mike Dunleavy (alternate)
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Coghill
Senator Huggins
Senator Dunleavy
Senator Wielechowski
Representative Feige
Representative Hughes
Representative Gara
Representative Gruenberg
Representative Thompson
Representative Saddler
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: NATURAL GAS MARKET OUTLOOK & FUNDAMENTALS OF THE
LNG BUSINESS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JANAK MAYER, Partner
Enalytica
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint titled "Natural Gas
Market Outlook & Fundamentals of LNG Business."
NIKOS TSAFOS, Partner
Enalytica
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint titled "Natural Gas
Market Outlook & Fundamentals of LNG Business."
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:37:53 PM
CHAIR ANNA FAIRCLOUGH called the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. Senators Fairclough and
Meyer, and Representatives Austerman, Herron, and Josephson were
present at the call to order. Senator Olson arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Also in attendance were Senators
Coghill, Huggins, Dunleavy, and Wielechowski, and
Representatives Feige, Hughes, Gara, Gruenberg, Thompson, and
Saddler.
^Presentation: Natural Gas Market Outlook & Fundamentals of the
LNG Business
Presentation: Natural Gas Market Outlook & Fundamentals of the
LNG Business
5:39:03 PM
CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH announced that the only order of business would
be a presentation on the outlook and fundamentals of the LNG
business and the natural gas market. She clarified that the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee had cancelled the
contract with PFC Energy after its acquisition by IHS during the
previous year. She declared that the development of trust
through years of consistency and professionalism had led the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee to authorize a contract
with Janak Mayer and Nikos Tsafos for the 2014 State of Alaska
legislative session. She reported that they were available to
discuss the modeling and analysis of natural gas and LNG. She
explained that the process for requesting information from these
consultants would be the same as in the previous legislative
session.
5:40:52 PM
JANAK MAYER, Partner, declared that he was a partner in the
newly formed energy advisory firm, Enalytica. He reported that
this was his third year working with the Alaska State
Legislature on gas and oil issues. He noted that he had
previously consulted as an employee of PFC Energy "on issues of
oil fiscal terms and fiscal terms reform." He explained that
the core of his work was based on modeling for fiscal terms
analysis and understanding with governments and international
companies for different oil and gas portfolios in different
regimes and environments.
5:42:08 PM
NIKOS TSAFOS, Partner, shared that he had spent 7.5 years
working with PFC Energy in global gas practice, and he had
worked globally with companies consulting "on every single
aspect of the oil and gas industry." He expressed his
excitement to advise the State of Alaska on its "path to
commercializing gas from the North Slope."
CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH specified that all of the documents were
currently available on BASIS, as well as on the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee website.
5:43:40 PM
MR. TSAFOS declared that he would talk about natural gas markets
and fundamentals of the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) business.
He noted that he would finish with a focus on the implications
for Alaska.
5:44:20 PM
MR. TSAFOS directed attention to slide 2, "Gas and LNG Market
Fundamentals are Strong." He noted that gas was "a great part
of the energy mix," and that the world was becoming more aligned
with natural gas. He shared that the expectation for energy
demand would grow at 1.2 percent, while the demand for gas would
increase by 1.6 percent. He stated that 24 percent of the total
energy would come from natural gas, up 3 percent from 2011. He
projected that the growth of demand for natural gas from now
until 2035 would be 31 percent. He opined that this was a good
time for the state to develop its natural gas, sharing that 70
percent would be consumed near the production point and 30
percent would be transported. He pointed to this market for
transported gas, projecting that 67 percent would be delivered
through the pipeline and 33 percent would be LNG. He reported
that LNG demand was the fastest growing part of the gas market,
growing four times faster than overall gas demand in the last
decade. He projected that the future demand for LNG would be
twice as fast as the overall consumption of natural gas. He
suggested that the projected gas market should include Asia, as
its proximity would be a great advantage for the state in
supplying the region. He offered his belief that a lot of
suppliers were trying to capture that market. He stated that a
key question for both buyers and investors was "Why Alaska?" He
reported that gas was very different from oil in many ways, and
the most profound difference was for pricing. He declared that,
while the world oil market traded primarily around a determined
price, there was not a similar pricing for gas. He explained
that there were huge disparities for gas pricing.
5:48:58 PM
MR. TSAFOS moved on to slide 3, "LNG Projects Are Big, Complex
And Multi-Layered," and highlighted that the history of
commercial LNG projects in Alaska reflected both similarities
and differences from pipeline projects. He stated that,
although both were natural gas, the business structures were
different. He pointed out that, although LNG projects take
years, even decades, from first discovery to commercial
production, the investors only make an initial huge investment
and then enjoy its benefits. The key question was whether it
was worth making the initial investment. He opined that, after
the initial investment, there would be long term revenue. He
stated that there was not a standard way to structure an LNG
project. As each project was big, complex, and different,
everything comes from negotiation, which allowed an enormous
potential for a win-win situation to all investors. He shared
that research on state project involvement reflected that an
entire range of outcomes was possible. He noted that states
could be regulators and tax levying authorities with no equity
or participation, or they could have complete ownership. He
emphasized that there was not a given path to participation or
investment.
5:53:14 PM
MR. TSAFOS described a long precedent of LNG projects to local
markets. He pointed to the gas which had been sitting without
an outlet for development, stranded gas, but was now being
developed for local markets, as well as for export. He
described a key for these projects to be risk management and
mitigation, including finance, marketing, and price review
clauses. He declared that the flexibility of negotiations using
risk mitigation methods could allow for a comfortable risk -
reward structure.
5:54:47 PM
MR. TSAFOS pointed to slide 4, "Alaska Has Many Ways To
Participate In LNG Project." He explained that the broad point
to highlight was that there were a lot of decisions for the
amount of state participation, and that there was not a
precedent for involvement. He clarified that this only required
willing counterparts. He pointed out that he knew of two LNG
projects with only one owner, as most projects involved many
equity partners, governments, and banks.
5:56:20 PM
MR. MAYER explained that he would offer an overview of the
fundamentals of the natural gas market and its future outlook,
slide 6, "Energy Demand Has More Than Tripled Since 1960." He
stated that gas was an increasing part of the energy story, and
that this was a good time for a state with substantial gas
resources to study ways for bringing it to market. He declared
that energy demand had more than tripled since 1960, with oil
being used primarily for transportation, while coal and gas were
used more for power. He added that nuclear and hydro power
contributed about 7.5 percent of the overall power. He noted
that 10 percent of worldwide power was provided by biomass, most
often wood and waste for heat and cooking fuel in developing
countries. He pointed out that, with development, the use of
biomass fuel would gravitate toward coal and gas.
5:58:52 PM
MR. MAYER discussed the projected increase in population and
energy use for the next 20 years, slide 7, "Strong Fundamentals
Support Higher Energy Use." He noted that the majority of
population increase would be in cities, and would desire energy
producing materials. He suggested that this would bring greater
energy efficiency. Moving on to slide 8, "IEA Forecasts Energy
To Grow At 1.2% by 2035," he stated that gas would account for
31 percent of the growth, an annual 1.6 percent growth rate.
This would increase the gas share of total energy use from its
current 21.3 percent to 23.7 percent. He allowed that there
would be a lot of need for a gas resource, which was good for
the state.
6:01:54 PM
MR. MAYER displayed slide 9, "Gas Units And Conversions," which
translated the terms for future conversations, emphasizing the
conversion of barrels [of oil] to cubic feet and the subsequent
conversion of cubic feet to heating units. He explained slide
10, "Only 30% Of Global Gas Is Traded [Vs. 64% Of Oil]," noting
that only 30 percent of gas ever crossed an international
border, as the remainder was consumed in the country from which
it was produced. He reminded the committee of the difficulty
for transporting gas, all of which required large amounts of
capital, in either a pipeline or LNG flasks. He reported that
Europe and Asia were the biggest import markets for gas,
accounting for 71 percent of gas imports. The former Soviet
Union had the greatest surplus of gas, exporting 26 percent. He
recounted that the United States, Mexico, and Canada produced
and consumed about 27 percent of the world's natural gas. He
stated that, of the 30 percent of natural gas transported across
borders, almost 70 percent was via pipeline, with the remaining
30 percent being LNG.
6:04:55 PM
MR. MAYER introduced slide 11, "More Than Half [58%] Of Gas
Trade Within Regions," and detailed that most of the 30 percent
of gas transported across borders stayed within a region. He
offered examples of trade from the former Soviet Union to Europe
and to Asia, and gas from the Middle East and North Africa to
Europe.
6:06:19 PM
MR. MAYER addressed slide 12, "IEA Puts Gas Demand Growth At
1.6% Through 2035," stating that the overall energy demand would
grow at 1.2 percent, but that the demand for gas would grow at
1.6 percent. He pointed out that there would be 18 percent
growth in the developed countries, but 82 percent growth in
developing countries, with 44 percent of this demand in Asia and
almost 20 percent in the Middle East.
6:07:11 PM
MR. MAYER moved on to slide 13, "LNG Market Was 31.7 BCF/D In
2012," and explained that Alaska had a potential to supply 2
billion cubic feet per day of LNG to the world LNG market demand
of almost 32 billion cubic feet each day. He stated that the
Middle East had the largest surplus of LNG, while Asia had the
biggest deficit, requiring 70 percent, with Europe requiring 21
percent. He added that South America and the Middle East had
also recently begun importing LNG, about 6 percent of the total.
He pointed out that Africa, namely Nigeria and Algeria, exported
about 16.5 percent of the surplus LNG.
6:08:41 PM
MR. MAYER furnished slide 14, "Qatar Is By Far Largest LNG
Exporter [32.6% Total]." He established that Qatar was "by far
the world's biggest LNG exporter at the moment" with almost 80
million tons in 2012. He predicted that Australia, with its
current production schedule, would surpass Qatar in production
by 2025 to become the largest LNG producer worldwide. He listed
Qatar, Malaysia, Australia, Nigeria, Indonesia, and Trinidad as
the primary suppliers of LNG, almost 75 percent.
6:10:00 PM
MR. MAYER offered slide 15, "LNG Demand Concentrated Among Few
Buyers," which listed Japan and Korea as the two markets for
almost 50 percent of the demand for LNG. He pointed out that
inclusion of China, Spain, India, and Taiwan accounted for 75
percent of demand, and that, except for Spain, all were in Asia.
He indicated that 15 other countries imported less than 2
percent each of global demand, but more and more countries were
importing LNG.
6:11:24 PM
MR. MAYER summarized slide 16, "LNG Demand To Grow 3.8% A Year
To 2030," observing that Asia was the dominant market with
almost 75 percent of the growth for LNG demand.
6:12:47 PM
MR. MAYER described slide 17, "Many Possible Suppliers, Many
Risks To Manage" and detailed that, although there were many
potential supply countries, all of them had many challenges,
including permitting, high costs, and local demand priorities.
6:14:29 PM
MR. MAYER reviewed slide 18, "Gas Pricing Structures Highly
Variable," declaring it was important to understand that,
although oil had a mostly single worldwide price, gas price
varied enormously around the world, "between countries and even
within countries." He listed several key approaches in the
pricing of gas: price is set solely on the balance of supply
and demand, per the Henry Hub gas price in the US, and the
national balancing point in UK; price is set against a
substitute fuel, as in Japan, or for its end use, as in
Trinidad; price is set solely against an arbitrary fixed price,
such as Equatorial Guinea.
6:18:23 PM
MR. MAYER confirmed slide 19, "No Such Thing As A Global Gas
Price," reporting that the price in 2012 ranged from an average
of $2.76 Henry Hub price in the U.S., more than $11.03 in
Germany, and $16.75 in Japan.
6:19:09 PM
MR. MAYER presented slide 20, "No Such Thing As An "Asian" Gas
Price," explaining that there was a substantial difference to
price ranging from $17.81 in Japan to $11.52 in China in 2012.
He noted that the range in price was often determined by when
the contracts were signed.
6:20:49 PM
MR. MAYER directed attention to slide 21, "Pricing Can Vary Even
Within Countries," noting the enormous disparity of individual
contracts for import costs of LNG to Korea, $6.40 from Russia to
$19.25 from Norway.
6:21:54 PM
MR. MAYER assessed slide 22, "Gas Pricing Is Undergoing
Fundamental Changes," and explained that there were surplus
cycles within the global gas market, which could create great
times for buyers as suppliers were in competition with each
other. He analyzed that these surplus cycles allowed movement
toward "mechanisms that are about the marginal cost of supply,"
which he defined as the capital the supplier had to invest for
production, with a reasonable rate of return. He considered the
times of shortage to be a seller's market, which allowed the
price of gas to be only slightly lower than the cost of a
substitute fuel. He declared that timing was "absolutely
everything." He projected that the outlook for post 2020 would
be driven by the "outlook for all the other projects that are
coming on-line, how quickly we see those moving forward, how the
strategy of importers changed during that time." He pointed to
the excitement of the large Asian utilities for gas prices
linked to the Henry Hub, rather than to oil prices. He observed
that the response of the large existing suppliers would also
fundamentally affect the price outlook. He concluded that
fundamentals for gas, specifically the LNG market, were very
strong, and that this was a great time to have a large gas
resource and to be looking for a market.
6:24:07 PM
MR. MAYER reviewed slide 23, "Gas And LNG Market Fundamentals
Are Strong". He pointed out that, although the demand for gas,
1.6 percent, was growing faster than the demand for energy, 1.2
percent, the demand for LNG had been growing four times faster
than the overall demand for gas during the last decade. The
demand growth in Asia makes it the focus of the Alaska market;
however, there were many supply options, which could create a
downward pressure on pricing. He reiterated that suppliers must
compete in the pricing, as gas pricing was "still about the
micro, rather than the macro. There's no global price, there's
no regional price, there isn't even a country price. Micro is
everything."
CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH affirmed that it was necessary to understand
the big picture, and that this report was a summary of an
earlier five day presentation. She relayed that the earlier
presentations were available to review on the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee website.
6:26:29 PM
MR. TSAFOS, presenting the fundamentals of the LNG business,
emphasized that the details really mattered. He indicated slide
25, "Big Upfront Investment, Long-Term Revenue," which was a
graphic representation of the initial investment for long term
benefits. He highlighted that generally the long-term economic
risk was for a subpar, or less than optimal, rate of return
rather than the outright loss of money.
6:28:43 PM
MR. TSAFOS commented on slide 26, "LNG Projects Move On Many
Parallel Fronts." He established that many of the project
pieces moved together, and required a lot of time before
construction. He spoke about the front-end engineering and
design studies (FEED and pre-FEED) which preceded the final
investment decisions (FID). He emphasized that, prior to
construction and FID, most of the worries should have been
studied and answered, before any great investment.
6:31:11 PM
MR. TSAFOS stated that, as the overall objective of an LNG
project was for sales, it was key to secure a counter party
which committed to buy the gas, slide 27, "Basics: LNG sales and
purchase agreements (SPAs)." He explained that the sales and
purchase agreements (SPAs) were long term contracts with many
components, including destination, duration, start date,
quantity, flexibility, and pricing structure. He specified that
the conflicts between states and companies were often based on
an understanding of the destination clauses, where the gas was
allowed to go and under what conditions. He explained that this
was crucial as it reflected a share of value under different
conditions. He explained that most contracts were "take or pay"
which meant that payment was for how much gas was taken, and not
based on its use; otherwise, any commitment to sales volume
which could be reduced or cancelled made the contract worthless
from a stability and predictability perspective. He listed gas
quality, whether it contained liquids, CO2 or other impurities,
profit sharing related to destination, non-compliance,
renegotiation clauses in contracts for either periodic review or
changes in fundamentals, and when the title of gas ownership
transfers from seller to buyer as important components of the
SPAs.
6:35:18 PM
MR. TSAFOS indicated slide 28, "LNG Exports Often Linked To
Domestic Gas Sales" and relayed that a large number of LNG
projects had a domestic component, including Yemen, Angola,
Malaysia, Australia, and Indonesia, requiring that a certain
percentage of gas be sold to the local market.
MR. TSAFOS moved on to slide 29, "Integrated Projects Distribute
Value Internally," focusing on the importance for the
distribution of value in the pricing. He described the three
structures for a project. First, he detailed an integrated
project which included ownership of the upstream production and
the liquefaction facility, with sales to another buyer. He
pointed out that, as the facilities all belonged to the same
company, the only important price was that to the buyer.
6:37:33 PM
MR. TSAFOS directed attention to slide 30, "Infrastructure Owner
Drives Pricing." In this second scenario, the liquefaction
facility bought the gas from the upstream producer and then
later sold it to a buyer. The profit was determined by the
price to buy and the price to sell. He presented three examples
which each reflected that the amount of the profit depended on
the economics of your place in the line of transaction. He
emphasized that the same commercial structure could have very
different outcomes for the distribution of value.
6:40:32 PM
MR. TSAFOS discussed slide 31, "LNG Akin To Pipeline: Pay A Fee
To Use Facility," which described a tolling structure, in which
the pipeline owner and the liquefaction owner were simply paid a
fee with no ownership of the gas, therefore the relevant pricing
was between the supplier and the buyer.
6:41:10 PM
MR. TSAFOS focused on slide 32, "There Is No "Right" Project
Structure" as the project was driven by the resource base. He
explained that an integrated project was simple, as there was
one transaction point, but it was not very flexible as everyone
was in the same ownership. He stated that a merchant project
could accommodate new gas supplies, but, as it required two
transactions, this could cause tension if there was
inconsistency between the supply and the demand price. He
pointed out that a tolling project was adaptable and scalable,
but it was necessary to agree on the tolling fee as well as
access to the infrastructure. He declared his desire to
familiarize the committee with the range of material to allow
for deeper discussions at a later time.
6:42:05 PM
MR. TSAFOS examined slide 33, "State Participation In LNG
Projects Varies Greatly," and stated: "You name it, it
happens." He clarified that government equity ranged from not
interfering other than to tax or regulate the companies to full
government ownership. He highlighted that government equity was
most often managed through national oil companies.
6:43:26 PM
MR. TSAFOS referred to the aforementioned development risks,
slide 34, "LNG Takes Time, Often Decades, From First Discovery,"
noting that Alaska was not peculiar as other projects had taken
20-30 years to be developed. He focused on the fact that very
few LNG projects had ended with the same project structure from
which they started, slide 35, "Partner Alignment Crucial For LNG
Development." He shared that, most often, partners pulled out
and others came on, which he declared to be "a crucial element
of getting everyone on board" in order for the correct
partnership to develop.
6:44:49 PM
MR. TSAFOS assessed the most serious risk, prior to start of the
project, to be delays and cost overrides, which he listed on
slide 36, "Development Risks." He suggested that the tendency
was for "late and over budget." This accounted for the current
variation in the cost analysis for Alaska.
6:45:33 PM
MR. TSAFOS relayed his desire to clarify the risks involved in
this equity venture, as it would better explain the economic
modeling, slide 37, "Technical Challenges Can Lead To Frequent
Outages." He reported that outages were a risk, as project
utilization ranged from 60 - 90 percent. He reminded the
committee that these outages could lead to subpar returns;
though not losing money, not earning as much as projected.
Introducing slide 38, "Supplying Local Markets Can Divert Gas
From LNG," he stated that a local market could take political
priority over exports, and should be considered in the economic
assessment.
6:46:57 PM
MR. TSAFOS said that natural decline, as on the Kenai, had to be
managed to meet contractual obligations, in order to mitigate
any penalties, slide 39, "Feedstock Maturity Can Lead To Rapid
Decline." Moving on to slide 40, "Demand Shock Led To Output
Losses- But Long Ago," he reflected that during the 1980s and
early 1990s, if the demand diminished, then production was
curtailed; however, in the LNG market today the risk was greater
for a lower price, rather than for output demand, slide 41,
"Price risk more important than volume risk."
6:48:55 PM
MR. TSAFOS suggested that mitigation for this volume risk in
half the LNG projects included sales to a project partner.
Although underperformance did not lead to any penalties, it
often led to third party financing, slide 42, "Buyers Often Take
Equity| Partners Off Take LNG."
6:49:58 PM
MR. TSAFOS explained that collateral for LNG project financing
was based on the future revenue stream, slide 43, "Project
Finance Well Established In LNG". He noted that this allowed
access to third party financing from commercial banks, private
sectors, and credit agencies. He suggested that a large portion
of financing for an Alaska LNG project could come from third
party financing, as reflected on the list on slide 43.
6:51:31 PM
MR. TSAFOS explained that there could be any pricing structure,
especially if the downside risk was reduced by providing a
ceiling on prices, slide 44, "Pricing Formula Can Reduce Price
Volatility." He declared that should there be a dispute or if
there were imbalances, LNG contracts could always be
renegotiated, slide 45, "Worst Case, There Is Always
Renegotiation."
6:54:11 PM
MR. TSAFOS discussed slide 46, "LNG Projects Are Big, Complex
And Multi-Layered," and stated that there was investment for
long term revenue, and the structure needed to address risk and
risk mitigation. He pointed out that it was often necessary to
forego some upside in order to defend some downside. He
declared that the implications for Alaska, slide 48, "Path
Forward Requires Answers To Key Questions," included the
questions for how should Alaska take its share, should the state
take equity in the project, what to do with gas taken in kind,
what risk and risk mitigators was the state willing to make, and
how to begin the project without locking in a specific
structure. He explained that it was necessary to correctly plan
for and define both the present and the future LNG projects. He
pointed out the need to question how the LNG project would fit
into the state revenue needs.
6:56:43 PM
MR. TSAFOS concluded with slide 49, "Alaska Has Many Ways To
Participate In LNG Project." He summarized that there was "a
huge range of possibilities in terms of where you invest, how
much you invest, how actively you participate ... " He declared
that the design possibilities were endless, as the only
necessity was for comfort between the state and the other
parties involved.
6:57:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, referencing slide 3 and noting that each
project was custom designed, asked if there were any examples
for world class model projects.
6:58:38 PM
MR. TSAFOS, in response, stated "yes, for the circumstances they
faced," offering his belief that this was the key caveat. He
presented Qatar as a model which had one massive field with a
major national company. He opined that merchant and tolling
projects were the most adaptable, as it was necessary to serve
both today and tomorrow's projects, citing Trinidad as a good
example. He emphasized that thinking through the permutations
in the beginning would save a lot of time along the way.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed that, although he basically
supported the concept of state ownership of the pipeline, he was
cautious. He questioned if it was common that minority owners
had to make payment for transportation through the pipeline,
even if no gas was shipped, and, if so, how extensive was this
risk.
7:02:31 PM
MR. TSAFOS replied that it was necessary to separate ownership
from [pipeline] capacity, and that these did not "have to be
identical." He explained that it was possible for arrangement
of a commercial structure to have ownership in the pipeline
without any commitment to ship gas. He stated that he was not
aware of an example for ownership with a commitment to ship gas
while there was no control over the gas going into the pipeline.
He suggested that with payment of gas in-kind, there would be
control.
7:04:00 PM
MR. MAYER opined that there was still quite a bit to be
determined, as it was quite possible for the state to have
equity in the pipeline and/or the liquefaction facility, or to
take its gas in kind, and ship it through both the pipeline and
the liquefaction facility. He declared that the state could
have active engagement, and not outsource the sales, but
instead, develop its own marketing operation. He offered other
possibilities which included agreements with one company or many
companies for marketing.
7:05:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN commented that he was impressed with
the presentation, but that he needed more time to absorb all the
information. He offered his belief that there was value in
applying and comparing the presented issues to "what is
currently on the table."
CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH clarified that the presenters were available
for recall to the committee. She pointed out that both the
Senate and House Resources Standing Committees would also be
accessing this information. She acknowledged that this
presentation had been "a fire hose approach" to the variables,
as these variables were very different than the oil market. She
declared that there would be a lot of opportunity for further
discussions with these consultants during the session.
7:08:25 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting was adjourned at
7:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Gas Market Outlook & LNG Business Fundamentals.pdf |
JBUD 1/28/2014 5:30:00 PM |