By IRENE QUEDNOW
June 10, 2026 – As the legislation to move the LNG project forward is now on the House floor in Juneau, and then onto the Senate, the question remains:
Are we saying goodbye to the gas line?
I sure hope not.
But while the Alaska Legislature continues to discuss the details of the deal, one day and then another slips away. Every day that passes increases the cost to the developer and shortens the remaining construction season for this year. Pushing the decision about the project into next year will have even more dire consequences – it will kill the gas line because of the subsequent unsustainable cost increase.
So where are we at?
The two main arguments for the delay seem to be “Alaska needs to get their fair share” and “the Alaska constitution says for the legislature to develop/utilize/conserve all resources…for the maximum benefit of its people”. But what is our “fair share” or the “maximum benefit”? Is it 20%, 39%, 53%?
There is no definition provided for either one of those terms. When you ask 12 different people you will get 12 different answers. Many are talking about the billions Glenfarne will be making in profits, but hardly anybody is talking about the risks being taken with billions in investment that will not start to be recouped until several years into the project.
Let’s look at some of the things Alaska will be receiving with the project moving forward:
- Roughly 12,000 jobs during the construction of the project
- Roughly 1,000 long-term jobs to maintain it
- An estimated 6000 jobs in the support industry (which will stay mostly local and will give a huge boost to local businesses)
- Attracting more investors / investments as other companies recognize Alaska as a good place to do business
- Taxes and royalties of about $26 billion
- Revenue of $22 billion or more for the state and around $4 billion for local governments
- Lower energy costs for everyone, including school districts, freeing up money to invest in education rather than heating buildings
- Dollars spent on gas will not support China or some other foreign country which is what would happen if we import gas
- Glenfarne just offered to cap the cost of gas to Alaskans even if the project goes over budget, another great concession to the state
- Glenfarne also agreed to pay for the building of the spurline to Fairbanks
Direct revenue from the project for Alaska would be about 1.7 billion dollars each year for 30 years.
It is common business practice that the more somebody buys / invests, the more discount they get. It does not mean things are being given away, but rather it is a give and take to the benefit of both parties involved.
On the other hand, if the project dies because of the bickering about what a fair share is, the political grand standing, the power plays and the virtue signaling that has been and is taking place in Juneau, Alaska’s fair share of about $52 billion will be …
ZERO.
So the question Alaskans and legislators have to ask themselves is this: How greedy are we going to be?
Irene Quednow is an Anchorage resident.
4 thoughts on “Irene Quednow: Time slipping away on gasline window of opportunity”
A project requiring 12,000 construction workers simultaneously, working in remote Arctic and sub-Arctic conditions along an 800-mile corridor, cannot be staffed primarily from Alaska’s existing labor pool. The state’s total construction workforce across all trades was approximately 18,000 workers in 2024. Mobilizing 12,000 of them to a single remote project while the rest of Alaska’s construction economy continues operating is not plausible. The honest number is that a significant majority of peak construction employment, almost certainly more than half, would be filled by workers coming from outside Alaska. Some would become Alaskans over time. Most would rotate through and leave, as they did on TAPS, which is the closest historical precedent. TAPS construction employed roughly 28,000 workers at peak in 1975. Alaska’s share of that workforce was a minority.
Maybe(???), the Legislature doesn’t want the LNG Pipeline to be built?
Maybe(???), they’re hedging their bets so as to personally gain from ‘no’ project games?
Maybe(???), with +75% public approval of the project, it’s time to leverage public pressure?
OR(???) … ”we” can continue to be managed by our narcissistic – ‘greater than thou’ overlords?
Fair question, how greedy are we going to be? Take a look at our education industry, homeless industrial complex, Medicaid fraud, PFD theft, and so many more, that’s greed, it’s growing, and it’s gotta be fed.
.
Have a go at these FAQ’s, pretend you’re under oath, let’s find out how greedy we should be:
.
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 Governor Palin’s $500M giveaway to TransCanada, what prevents a similar giveaway or a 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)
.
So, 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?
.
11. 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)
.
12. Is their promise of price controls on customer rates not unrealistic, did we not learn the hard way about the effect of price controls on supply during the 1970’s oil crisis?
.
Does this ring a bell, are they promising anything differently now? “We economists don’t know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can’t sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you’ll have a tomato shortage. It’s the same with oil or gas.”
(“Friedman Blames Mess on Federal ‘Helpers’,” Los Angeles Times, February 10, 1977)
.
13. What assures us their ulterior motive is -not- lowballing, setting prices artificially, temporarily low to discourage investment in two other, apparently more economical alternatives to Glenfarme’s gasline? A company operating as described in: “A quick tour around the network of Glenfarne, the company agreeing to build Alaska LNG project” has -no- motive, means, or opportunity to do this, plus it could never happen here …remind again why?
(https://mustreadalaska.com/a-quick-tour-around-the-network-of-glenfarne-the-company-agreeing-to-build-alaska-lng-project/)
.
Seems reasonable to want answers because: (a) we 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) we don’t want to be left holding the bag, again, when another epic screw-up goes down.
.
Maybe it’s all good. Or not. We don’t know, nobody’s saying, and in this climate of uncertainty and corruption, don’t we who have a 25% stake in this thing deserve to know?
.
That’s it for starters.
.
Ironic …if these questions, and a few others, were asked and answered at the beginning, this thing might actually be underway and neither one of us would feel the need to be doing what we’re doing now.
.
Thank you, Irene, for your attention to this matter.
Yes, I remember TransCanada and the contract for $750 mil contract with a$500 mil start. But, they had to go through a competitive bid process which HAS NOT happened with Glenfarne because the Crime Boss Dunleavy governor has not followed the legal process for obtaining a contract. It was a beginning and two big oil companies were on standby to take up the business at the time, Exxon and Conoco Phillips. There were other bids but to small to consider.
The difference with all of that and what is happening from governor’s office is a company wanting access to bigger bucks than Palin put out and no competitive bid process giving the state strong terms to put them out if they don’t follow the contract on competitive process. This is not a case of Alaska LNG, its a case of passing unsecured money to a business, Glenfarne that works primarily with third world countries and because Dunleavy does everything in a half-assed manner and that he intends to find another place for himself after his time is up.
There is no survey on that line marketed to the public and never has been. Go to FERC.gov and look up the information as to what they say under oath to the legislature. No certificate has been given to Glenfarne for this project, ever. Also, when you look in the FERC site look for the approval for shipping. There is none. The big deal is free money in a big way and that was improvised by Dept Interior Bergham. There has never been a comment period because there is no contract. GLENFARNE wants FREE money from the PFD. The issue of TAXES is a put on and I encourage everyone to call and send emails to the legislature to stop the crape on taxes and kill the bill, SB 2001 along with all bills related to the insanity of the Crime Boss Dunleavy playing the Alaskan residents for fools and the presidency of Trump and his administration for fools..
The two surveys for a gas line were completed by the end of the survey contracted by Gov. Palin to the Yukon border. The two contracted surveys ran parallel to the oil pipeline. If built on the surveyed track, there would be no destruction of environment and the permit period would not be a problem because all of that ground where the pipe is today was permitted and anything else requiring permits would be waived. Also no studies would need to be done to determine feasibility studies. They were done and the oil pipe was built. No need for environmental law suits.
The only issues to put through the works is a comment period for people who live along that pipe corridor, concern of animals and people with needs and construction concerns.
The liquification process plants should be constructed probably in Delta Junction or Glennallen due to the best ground soils for those types of industries needing that advantage. The whole line already has legal, navigational, safety planned navigational and shipping lines out of Valdez. Yes, jobs are needed but just as with the oil pipeline, this gas line through the same area will produce work, living and jobs.
Shipping out of Valdez is the safest and best and a done item in the FERC.gov process.
Its up to the people of Alaska to take their lives in hand and make the change instead of letting the idiots of Glenfarne thinking take over and steal the future of the residents of this state.