By ALEX GIMARC
May 12, 2026 – As the great money grab known as enabling legislation for the natural gas pipeline is tortured into life by the Democrat – RINO led majorities in the legislature, it is time to consider options should the product be as awful as we are expecting it to be.
I expect some variation of the Sen. Cathy Giessel high tax, uncertain oversight structure, and uncertain regulatory and legal environment to pass. Fairbanks and the Kenai will get their property tax bite from the project apple, demanding full property tax payments in their hands before the first cubic foot of natural gas flows.
In short, a combination of legal, regulatory and oversight uncertainty, and expected high taxes on the pipeline and product will make the $44+ billion pipeline from Prudhoe to Kenai economically impossible.
What do we do then?
There are a couple options. The first would be an option that does not require a pipeline. This would be a natural gas liquification facility and dock at Prudhoe Bay, shipping LNG in tankers, guided by the three brand new icebreakers over the top, and down the western side of Alaska.
A second option would be an over-the-top natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe to Kotzebue, mostly north of the Brooks Range, liquification facility at Kotz, dock for tankers, and shipping from there. Pipeline here would be only half as long as the 800+ mile proposed pipeline.
What are the advantages of the two options? First, and most importantly, is that they completely bypass the state and local government property tax money grab. The first nearly completely bypasses Cathy Giessel’s new regulatory and oversight structure. The second bypasses a lot of it. Best of all, the first option for sure and likely the second can possibly meet the Trump Administration desire to be in operation by Jan 2029.
While an Alaska natural gas pipeline would mainly service customers on the Pacific Rim, there is no reason the occasional or regular LNG tanker can’t make it into Cook Inlet to supply Railbelt needs.
There are multiple arguments against either of these two options.
The first is that the Chukchi, Beaufort, and Bering Seas ice up in winter. True, that. On the other hand, we are about to have three brand-spanking new icebreakers capable of operating out of Nome. Better yet, the Russians are learning how to export oil and natural gas from northern ports on the Arctic Ocean. We can learn from each other.
Second would be the lack of a deep-water port in Kotzebue. That is currently true, but one at Cape Blossom is in the planning / construction process.
Third would be the lack of Environmental Impact Statements for either option. Given the current administration, those permits should be much easier to obtain. Note that President Obama appointee Judge Sharon Gleason is not the only federal judge in Alaska anymore.
Final would be the lack of free natural gas for the Railbelt. Most men learn at an early age that the free stuff is the most expensive, so I have learned, however painfully, not to travel that road. But the real question is this a Railbelt project or a State of Alaska project? And why ought one part of the state get freebies while the rest of the state doesn’t?
I fully expect a combination of greed, Trump Derangement Syndrome and Dunleavy Derangement Syndrome to result in an unacceptable bill. While I would be highly entertained by multiple special sessions keeping a recalcitrant legislature in session during election season until they pass something acceptable, I don’t think they are interested in or capable of passing anything resembling that.
If they prove they are completely unwilling or unable to pass something that will enable this project to be built and operated in the best interest of the entire state rather than those of a single political party, there are options that minimize their influence.
The message to the anti-pipeline crowd in the legislature and elsewhere. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Good and hard.
Alex Gimarc lives in Anchorage since retiring from the military in 1997. His interests include science and technology, environment, energy, economics, military affairs, fishing and disabilities policies. His weekly column “Interesting Items” is a summary of news stories with substantive Alaska-themed topics. He was a small business owner and Information Technology professional.
Alex Gimarc: The perpetual voter registration loop created by Senate Bill 64
Alex Gimarc: Lying liars who lie at the Alaska Center (for the Environment)
12 thoughts on “Alex Gimarc: If Legislature kills Alaska LNG gasline, Arctic export alternatives await”
Not killed. Just another delay. Alaska is a rich resource provider; so rich that someone will develop what we today fail to develop even if they must take over by force one day (all the mining projects like pebble mine, drillings will most likely happen because human nature loves wealth) ; and they’ll throw money into our weak leaders faces to shove them out of the way. The closer this world approaches the Revelation Endtime when perhaps America is taken out because she is judged; when the Real Church is raptured; when the one world leader is revealed (who can’t be revealed until Christ shows his second coming that’s to say Trump is not the anti christ nor Ai), Damascus is obliterated, and Isreal has no friends and the whole world is coming against her and no one but God to save her. The more desperation and restlessness people including world leaders will increase more hard hearted more self centered.
If anything happens to the rest of the country like judgement or financial collapse, you don’t want to be down there in the states near those cities with tens of millions of people, you want to be in Alaska. There would be so many selfish people come up to Alaska it’ll overwhelm our weak leaders who don’t lead well and likely the sheer high voule of people running north would be enough to shove our weak Alaska leaders out of the way because of exhaustion.
We today are a crippled state because of current leaders and people dysfunction put a healthy person in a wheelchair and told they are a handicap to maintain their bondage.
Let’s hope that … Logic, Reason, and Common Sense prevails soon on this issue and the Anti-Pipeline // Trump Derangement Syndrome // Dunlevy Syndrome take a deep breath and do what’s right for Alaska and Alaskans. The alternative (ie: “You might get it. Good and hard.”) is where ethics and morals are absent and, the best interest of Alaska and Alaskans prevail at any cost.
“……..I fully expect a combination of greed, Trump Derangement Syndrome and Dunleavy Derangement Syndrome to result in an unacceptable bill……….,”
Not to mention the environmental kooks hiring lawyers to fight any and all other attempts to get that gas to a flame anywhere on Earth, and……….
……….not to mention the army of lawyers and engineers burning off another $billion in new studies/permits/permissions/designs/cost estimates/etc.
The more Alaskans bandy this issue back and forth, the more amenable I am to just buying Canadian gas at any monetary price from the new LNG project soon to begin operations in BC. I just want reliable gas. I don’t want to endure an overwhelming helping of bullshit for a century or two to get it and keep it flowing. Paying somebody else to go through that shit by the cu.ft beats the $billions up front cost in both dollars and headache. Hell, at this point, I’m almost ready to burn wood for 100% of my heat again if I can be promised that the bullshit ends.
If you think a gas pipeline from the North Slope to Nikiski would be expensive wait until you try to build a pipeline from Prudhoe to Kotzebue and all the roads and infrastructure required, including a deep-water dock in Kotzebue and upgrades to their electrical grid! Also, charter rates for those icebreakers will not be cheap and so far, untested. If Glenfarne can commit to supplying the Railbelt with inexpensive natural gas before LNG operations than their project is the better one and probably will be much less expensive. The Devil will be in the details and unless the legislature ups their IQ’s the possibility of getting shystered is very real!
Good questions all.
The big question is that are the problems with either of the two possible alternatives is this: Do they make the project more or less possible than what the legislative majorities are attempting to do? If the answer is no, then the legislature wins, and there will be no gasline. If the answer is yes, then we can get on with the job of answering your questions. Saying no is easy to do. Figuring out how to economically do it is difficult, but doable.
The last point is that this is NOT a Railbelt project. It IS an Alaska project, just like TAPS was. The Railbelt ought not to be in the business of legislating freebies for itself. And if you are shipping from either Kotz or Prudhoe via tankers, remind me why it is impossible for a few of them to end up in Cook Inlet. Cheers –
Legislature:
Come together and get this done! Stop taxing and start implementing a much needed gas line. We don’t want to be beholden to Canadian gas!
Alex, you know stuff and are adept at expressing it.
.
We’re not pro- or anti- gas line, but are slightly suspicious because whoever’s selling it hasn’t answered what’s been asked several times about it.
.
Your thoughts?
.
1. How much will Alaskans’ heating and electric bills increase following pipeline construction?
2. Will product be sold directly or indirectly to Communist China?
3. If supply or demand issues arise, are Asian buyers prioritized over Alaskan customers?
4. Are Communist Chinese entities involved in project financing, insurance, or construction?
5. Is a contingency plan in place if Democrat-controlled administrations revoke permits or local governments demand more taxes?
6. Recall Palin’s $500M giveaway to TransCanada, what prevents a similar giveaway or debt trap from happening?
7. What assures pipeline-control gear will be CISA vetted? (https://www.cisa.gov/)
8. When LNG development is actually over, will AGDC be disbanded?
9. What assures Alaskans and the Permanent Fund won’t be on the hook for up-front costs, contractor fraud, and losses if Glenfarne can’t get, or later loses, binding financial commitments from Asian companies and governments?
(https://ptop.substack.com/p/guide-to-uncovering-contractor-fraud?)
10. What makes Polar LNG -not- better positioned to move natural gas by leveraging existing Prudhoe Bay infrastructure, minimizing new onshore development, and delivering a more efficient and lower-impact path to market …at a quarter of the cost?
(https://polarlng.com/project/)
.
On June 25, 2025, AGDC released an updated $38.7 billion cost estimate for the Alaska LNG Project.
(https://agdc.us/updated-38-7-billion-project-construction-cost/)
.
Now Glenfarne wants $44 billion-plus.
.
Then there’s this: “The latest evidence that no one knows what the gas will cost comes from an independent report by Rapidan Energy Group, which says the likely cost of the pipeline project is far higher than the $44 billion estimate still in circulation …Add in the cost of the so-called first phase—building a pipeline from the North Slope to Anchorage without compression and export facilities and the total project cost would exceed $70 billion.”
(https://www.dermotcole.com/reportingfromalaska/2025/6/24/glenfarnes-latest-deceptive-press-release-about-alaska-lng-project)
.
Who’s on the hook when project cost runs up to, say, $90 billion, or reaches a point at which it doesn’t seem worth building because financial, geopolitical, legal, and physical risks outweigh benefits, making it unlikely to turn a profit during the lifetime of anyone alive today?
.
Is Senator Giessel responding out of concern for what the Rapidan analysis shows, which the Dunleavy administration, AGDC, and Glenfarne analyses apparently don’t show?
(https://www.rapidanenergy.com/about)
.
Surely it’s not anti-development for Alaskans to demand answers because: (a) they don’t trust government officials or the business community who bought the lobbyists who make up the biggest half of Alaska’s lobbyist-legislator team, and (b) they don’t want to be left holding the bag, again, when another epic screw up goes down.
.
Maybe it’s all good. Or not. Bottom line is we don’t know, and in this climate of uncertainty and corruption, it seems only prudent to know more than we’re being told.
Great stuff, Morrigan. Appears to be worth an article. You ought to submit to Suzanne. Cheers –
Morrigan –
I’ll make a (however poor) attempt at responding to your questions. First, a couple global observations;
– All the State liability stuff ought to be in the enabling legislation, publicly discussed and voted upon. That the Giessel-led Senate Resources has done none of that – questions, answers or public testimony – tells me everything I need to know about what they are attempting to do.
– It is telling that Giessel changed public testimony Weds from afternoon to 0900 so that experts airborne couldn’t make the meeting.
On to the questions –
1. Once the gas starts flowing, I would think gas and electric bills should be topped out, not go any higher if for no other reason than more natural gas available in the local marketplace. Only thing that would blow that up if the REAP-friendly members of various railbelt utilities get their wish and cram large solar / wind projects down our throats.
2. I expect China will be a market for both natural gas and oil based on some Trump comments in China yesterday.
3. Sales priorities will be set in the various contracts. We ought to get one of those.
4. No CCP $$$ in this one to the best of my knowledge.
5. No protection against any future democrat administration malfeasance at federal, state or local level other than tar and feathers that I know of.
6. Voters are our own protection.
7. Enabling legislation / sales contracts
8. Like all government entities, AGDC will never be disbanded. If we’re lucky (or unlucky) it will be turned into a regulatory oversight entity.
9. Enabling legislation and sales contracts will protect the Permanent Fund from liability. You are more hopeful than I am though, as I think the democrat – RINO majorities in the legislature think they’ve already got it spent (defined benefit pensions, adding an education obligation to the PF).
10. The longer this goes, the better the terminal at Prudhoe looks to me. But what do I know?
The longer this goes, the more expensive it will get. Remember the quoted cost if for pipe only. There is another $12b or so in liquification / processing / storage on either end.
Respectfully disagree. We aren’t seeing any of those questions out of Cathy’s majority. Worse, she is actively ensuring the experts aren’t able to make any public testimony. Now that the game has devolved into “Let’s make a deal” trading gasline enabling legislation for defined benefits / permanent education hook into the PF, I am increasingly pessimistic we will see anything useful from them this month.
Hope this helps. Sure forces some thinking. Cheers –
Thank you, Alex.
Contract out the maritime transport from Prudhoe with the Russians. They have dozens of nuclear icebreakers and know what they are doing. None of this dysfunctional bickering with kleptocrats we call our politicians.