Oct. 2--In the high-stakes natural gas sweepstakes, could Alaska get pushed aside -- once again?

Rock-bottom prices for natural gas aside, there's a lot of worry that the new U.S. boom in gas production from shale in addition to foreign governments anxious to send their surplus liquefied natural gas to the U.S. will undercut plans for a $30 billion-plus Alaska gas pipeline.

It's happened twice already. Is a third time a strikeout?

A senior state official argues no, that Alaska's gas is still in the game.

Mark Myers, most recently national U.S. Geological Survey director who now works on pipeline issues in the state Department of Natural Resources, says the threat from shale gas is overblown and Alaska's gas can complete with that taken from shale.

As a state official, Myers can't be blamed for putting the best face forward for Alaska, but an independent appraisal from an expert from consulting firm Purvin and Gertz says shale gas producers and LNG importers could eat our lunch unless we get cracking with our project and rigidly control costs.

This is the third time a serious effort has been underway to build a gas pipeline from Alaska.

The first, in the early 1970s, collapsed when the Canadian government nixed a route for the pipeline down the Mackenzie River. It was to have gone east from the North Slope to the Mackenzie, crossing through what is now ANWR, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

A second effort, this time down the Alaska Highway on basically the same route now proposed, ended when gas markets in the Lower 48 turned sour.

Deja vu? Maybe, maybe not.

The optimist

Myers, the state's Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) coordinator in the Department of Natural Resources, is basically optimistic about this time around, as well as about Alaska's position in the competitive mix. This, despite the current plunge in natural gas prices.

For starters, Myers believes natural gas is likely to enjoy a favored position in the nation's energy mix in the coming years, despite the emphasis now being put on renewable energy and other alternatives.

"With the outlook for long-term population growth, fossil fuels will still dominate," Myers said.

The possible move toward climate-related legislation on the national level could help Alaska, too. Among the potential fuel sources, natural gas stands out," because of its low carbon content relative to other fuels, Myers said.

"If carbon dioxide emissions are really an issue, natural gas is the only fuel that will make a substantial difference," he said.

The threat from shale gas is being overstated, said Myers, a petroleum geologist who was recently head of the U.S. Geological Survey and former head of the Alaska Division of Oil and Gas.

"When we choose an energy source, we've got to look at the overall impacts of using it and what constraints there might be," Myers said.

With shale gas, water use will be a concern in addition to any land-use impacts, he said.

The locations of the usable shale will also work against it in the long run, Myers said.

"Shale gas is an important resource that will continue to grow, but its very advantage of being close to population areas in the U.S. East is also a disadvantage because of the potential land-use impacts.