By ROBERT SEITZ
May 27, 2026 – The governor’s Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference was definitely worth attending. There were some soft spot during the conference, but there is an increase in energy and excitement with the possibility of the Alaska LNG project at a point of becoming real.
There were construction companies, engineering companies and lots of entrepreneurs making themselves available to get a piece of the action. The disappointing part was the lack of action or decision making on the part of the legislators.
There is no way anyone can provide a good guess for the price of the project at this time. I worked on the pre-FEED engineering for the project 8 or 10 years ago and cannot, at this time, provide a number that I would stand by because conditions left from the previous federal administration as well as current conditions.
What is clear is that Alaska needs this project, but it may need to be delayed a bit for prices and availability to return to more palatable values. What does have to be considered is the cost to Alaskans for not having such a project.
Natural gas in Fairbanks will be a much more affordable heating fuel than fuel oil, and would be much less polluting than wood. Natural gas fueled turbines will be less expensive to run than Naphtha fueled generators. Delivery of fuel by pipe is more efficient and convenient than is oil or coal delivered by trucks. Natural gas delivered to Fairbanks will greatly reduce the demand on Cook Inlet gas, once natural gas fueled generators are installed.
What we all need to do now is look for the positives, find the reasons for building the line, and don’t focus on the problems and difficulties. Find the work arounds that will make the project a success. So we should be asking “how much delay would we expect if we wait for more favorable pricing and delivery?” We can start work on the hard parts of the pipeline route so they can get done earlier, without need of the bulk of the material. Find the ways that can work then move forward. Once we know what will work and what is acceptable the legislation can be tailored to permit the right actions to be taken.
Now the property tax issue can be worked out the same way. Gov. Mike Dunleavy tried to set up a scheme that would work and be within the financial constraints of the project, but communication seems to have been lost somewhere is the struggle. I’m sure that the proposal put forth by the governor would work for a while at least. If some communities are more impacted by the pipeline project during construction and then its operation, the legislation can be set up to allow those who can demonstrate the extra burden they have to apply for an altered rate schedule to fits their situation.
It seem clear to me that the initial impact on any community will not have much impact on schools and other services as a project like this starts with workers and families show up later. Road conditions will be impacted more than normal. The process should be simple. Determine that the original proposal will work for a while and for most location through with the pipeline will be installed, then provide for reevaluation of the process and rate then provide the means in the legislation to permit and accommodate possible changes. Have an attitude of what do we need to do to make sure this will work and can accommodate future issues.
And while the Alaska LNG discussions are going on, let’s not forget Cook Inlet natural gas. Somebody out there must be able to come up with a plan that will provide the incentive and encouragement that will result in adequate financing to drill lots of holes in or near Cook Inlet each year so that we are not always resorting to “Cook Inlet gas is running out soon.” Cook Inlet gas should remain less expensive for a while into the future than will the Alaska LNG gas. We need to get the LNG shipped to the customers so the royalties will fill the state coffers.
While all this natural gas effort is going on we can be progressing geothermal, hydro, and nuclear power for the power and energy sources of the future to replace natural gas when it does run out. We need to always be focused on “cheap energy” so that we can attract some other industry to Alaska besides extraction.
Maybe eventually we can come up with a good value added industry that will be a good revenue source for the state as we progress North to the future.
Robert Seitz is a professional electrical engineer and lifelong Alaskan.
5 thoughts on “Robert Seitz: Find a way to get behind the Alaska LNG project and other things good for Alaska”
I agree, Mr. Seitz. Let’s give the multi-national gas line developers whatever they ask for, then we can sit back and pray that the many other uncontrollable aspects of this mega-project fall in line to bring it to fruition. If it does, we’ll all be rich. Meanwhile, we should all say 13 Hail Marys and 2 Acts of Contrition each day. Along with diminutive taxes to affected Alaskans, that’ll help.
“……… we should all say 13 Hail Marys and 2 Acts of Contrition each day………..”
Good advice, even though the rest of your comment was worthless.
Those who fail to learn from history…..
You do know that there is already a model out there for the LNG gasline, right? That model has successfully paid developers, taxes, and addressed other problems, real an imagined. It has done it for half a century despite the best efforts of the legislature to screw it up.
What is this successful mega-project? None other than TAPS, successfully moving oil from Prudhoe to Valdez since 1977. We have a successful model. Might be smart to use that as a starting point or simply copy it.
I would say your concerns, while real to you, are a bit overblown. We have done it before. We are currently doing it. And despite the BANANAs / dems / RINOs, I expect we can do it again, hopefully this summer. Cheers –
Gimarc. How much will the project cost?
Your argument fails at: “There is no way anyone can provide a good guess for the price of the project at this time. ”
.
In “Alaska LNG Project”, Feb 6, 2026, under Item 6, Alaska LNG Project Cost we see: “The total estimated cost for the Alaska LNG project is approximately USD 44 billion. It includes the overall cost till the completion of the project, including the price of the pipeline, gas treatment plant, and Nikiski LNG export terminal.”
(https://www.blackridgeresearch.com/project-profiles/alaska-lng-project-united-states-background-history-cost-contractors-timeline-latest-updates“)
.
So, which one’s right?
.
In your May 11 “Alaska Story” article, you said the “…natural gas rate in Alaska is already near the lowest of all the states in the nation.”
.
The “Choose Energy April natural gas rates report”, April 3, 2026, reports Idaho, at number 1, has the cheapest gas, and Alaska, at number 23, does not have the cheapest gas.
.
Again, which one’s right?
.
Your argument fails again at: “What we all need to do now is look for the positives, find the reasons for building the line, and don’t focus on the problems and difficulties”
.
You seem to say it’s the public’s job to figure out what Glenfarme’s doing, not annoy them, just pay what they want, when they want.
.
You seem to say it’s -not- Glenfarme’s or the government’s job to answer our questions, tell us what they’re doing, especially about their “problems and difficulties”.
.
See the problem now?
.
It’s not about being “for” or “against” the gas line.
.
Problem is a project this big, we can’t get straight answers to reasonable questions we’ve asked a dozen times, so how can we know what’s good, bad, or ugly about it?
.
You know corporate investors got the answers before investing their billions, so why are we left in the dark?
.
Who cares how the legislature taxes the gas if the bulk of it goes to Asia in general and Communist China in particular?
.
Seems reasonable to ask because we know legislators won’t jeopardize their collective self-interest by taxing a commodity to the point that Important Folks and overseas customers can’t afford it.
.
So here’s your assignment, Robert: Our very own version of FAQ’s languish unanswered at “Secretary of Interior Burgum calls out the Legislature”. As a subject-matter expert, can you answer them?
(https://thealaskastory.com/secretary-of-interior-burgum-calls-out-the-legislature/)