Ky Holland, June 6, 2025

Thoughts on today’s ADN article, “Is wave of attention winning over Alaska LNG skeptics” https://adn-ak.newsmemory.com/?publink=08f845556_134fa12

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about whether the skeptics are “being won over.” That’s a tired distraction. The real question is whether there’s verified, binding, bankable demand for Alaska’s gas at a price and timeline that makes any economic sense—not just political grandstanding leveraging a tariff tantrum, decorated in international photo ops.

We’ve now poured what I’ve heard is over $1 billion of Alaska’s general fund dollars—yes, actual public money—into chasing this North Slope pipe dream over decades and through multiple rebrands. And still, we get vague “expressions of interest,” unverified “letters of intent,” and cost estimates that haven’t budged from the magical $44 billion figure in years, while everything else in the economy has inflated like a helium balloon at a birthday party, and ready to burst.

An aside – The $44 billion price tag is now 10 years old. If we use the consumer price index that amount now is approximately $60 billion in 2025 dollars, not including tariffs. Then if we look at typical recent pipeline projects and the uncertainty and cost overruns that have been anywhere from 20 to 400% then it’s I think practical to assume that this project when it comes time to actually begin construction will be more than the $44 billion price that is being promoted. And that does not begin to include any other ancillary community infrastructure investments to support the project or to support the communities impacted by the project and the new residents and the need for utilities, roads, docks, schools or a few more folks who want a PFD. Of course we’ve gotten good at being a great place for non-residents to work, so perhaps I’m just being snarky now instead of a skeptic.

This isn’t skepticism—it’s fatigue. Fatigue from being told that this time it’s different, this time it’s real, this time we swear someone will buy our gas. Meanwhile, critical Cook Inlet energy projects get trampled by the thundering hype-parade of the gas line that’s always 3 to 5 years away—just long enough to suck all the oxygen and capital out of the room and keep us frozen in indecision about what to do next.

When Glenfarne promises gas by 2028—but only to Fairbanks or maybe just to Cook Inlet (but not across it!) —what they’re really doing is protecting the narrative that we can wait and actually use the gas in state, undermining other projects that could actually deliver energy at a lower cost to Alaskans faster and long term. This isn’t about opposition to a pipeline. It’s about the ongoing failure to make practical decisions while spending scarce public dollars on the next mega project dream, while ignoring the stagnating economy and opportunity cost of support for other projects that prioritize the cost and availability of energy to home and business rate payers.

And if $44 billion is an impractical starting figure at this point in time, it’s also an incomplete figure. We are avoiding the question of all of the other public investments that will come from a budget that is already far short of supporting even our basic needs as we just saw on this last session. Consider just a few of these other costs that the state will be asked to support and is not prepared for:

• Have we already built the necessary road, bridge, and dock infrastructure to support building a pipeline? (There was a billion dollar partial list of projects, table 8.3, that would take 6 years to complete. Any progress?)
• Do we have a plan for housing of all the workers that would be needed for the pipeline and might be more than temporary man-camps so that we actually have an investment in long-term housing for our state?
• Do we know how we’re going to support the schools (if they remain even open) that the pipeline workers might want their kids to attend?
• Is there any plan to provide any support for new businesses and economic development around the pipeline project that would benefit more Alaskan’s versus just attracting companies to come to Alaska and do all the work and leave?
• Have we considered the fiscal cash flow reality of all of the tax credits that will be provided for these projects. (And sorry to burst someone’s balloon recently, but Glenfarne and Eight Star Alaska that own the gas line project are LLC‘s, and pay no corporate income taxes.)

I don’t think this is skepticism. This is a question about whether or not there’s a well-thought-out practical plan, and whether or not we’re making appropriate use of our time, energy and money and focusing on the right project(s).

If this project has real market demand, great—let’s see the contracts. Let’s see the signed ship-or-pay agreements. Let’s see the companies ready to put down $10 to $20 billion, like Senator Giessel rightly suggested. Until then, stop treating this like a done deal and stop selling it like a carnival act, and making skeptics the problem.

Alaskans aren’t rubes. We know when we’re being bamboozled—and when we’re being offered a real opportunity. Let’s stop asking whether the skeptics are coming around and start asking whether our leaders are making sober, disciplined decisions about our energy future.

Because wishful thinking isn’t an energy plan. And it’s certainly not fiscal responsibility.

Ky