By ROBERT SEITZ
June 10, 2026 – The more comments I see the less confident I am in the inherent capability of Alaskans. I grew up hearing people complain about the government, but when it came to building a mine, or a road, or a boat the responses were constructive. “Let’s get ‘er done.”
The LNG project can be built without signed contracts for the LNG. The primary thing is to have the commitment from North Slope producers for North Slope gas. With that we can build a pipeline. My understanding was that the pipeline was estimated at $11 billion. I estimated in an earlier commentary that the pipeline to Fairbanks would probably be about $6 billion of that amount. And for everyone out there, the pipeline includes compressor stations along the route, along with whatever block valves and isolation valves might be needed.
There as those who are concerned that the North Slope oil companies only support Phase 1 but not Phase 2. Once gas is committed for the gas pipeline, it will be available at the end of the pipeline to feed the LNG plant one it is built. The oil companies on the North Slope won’t have an interest in the LNG plant unless they chose to invest in it.
One commenter is obsessed with Communist China. I have not mentioned Communist China anywhere in any of my writings. I don’t remember Communist China being one of the customers for our LNG during the discussion Sen. Dan Sullivan has had in the Far East. The Alaska benefits from the LNG project are the royalties the State of Alaska will receive, which will help pay for ferries, roads and schools. The State will also benefit from the goods and services bought within Alaska during construction.
Someone brought up the claim that Polar LNG can be delivered by shipping from the North Slope, cheaper than the AkLNG project pipeline can deliver gas anywhere in the State. One question I have, is once the AkLNG project is paid for, and all investors have received their payments what will the price for compressed gas be delivered anywhere along the pipeline. I’m sure that price will be lower than the Polar LNG price as they still have to pay the shipping costs.
While many are discouraged by the lack of many bidder for leases in ANWR the reason is clear. The banks and financial institutions were quoted as saying none of them were interested in providing any financing for oil and gas development in ANWR. Thankfully there were a few Alaska bids to show interest. We need to get the financial organizations to find investing in Alaska Oil and Gas projects no matter where they are located.
This then leads me once again into Cook Inlet gas and the need for Alaska and Alaskans to consider it to be a critical infrastructure for the state. If we can keep up the flow of Cook Inlet gas, it should remain the least expensive natural gas for use in southcentral Alaska. Our objective should be to provide cheap energy for use within our State. We can have the AkLNG project and Cook Inlet gas at the same time.
Remember, to power the Railbelt Utility from the Fairbanks end with North Slope natural gas would provide cheaper energy to that end than would be provided by diesel fuel, or Naptha or heating oil. And it would reduce demand directly on Cook Inlet Gas. If a period of tax relief is needed to provide a most positive offering to investors, then lets provide that. We can find ways to help with support in the affected communities when the activity and people increase in their location.
North to the Future.
Robert Seitz is a professional electrical engineer and lifelong Alaskan.
3 thoughts on “Robert Seitz: More response to commenters and those still unsure about Alaska gasline”
One problem that supporters of this pipeline have is the misleading terminology surrounding it. It would be/will be a natural GAS pipeline, NOT an LNG pipeline! The LNG part of it would be purely secondary, and only at the end of the pipeline. Erroneously referring to it as “The LNG Project”, or “The LNG Pipeline” hides and overlooks the very real and direct advantages that the NATURAL GAS pipeline would have to the large majority of Alaskans, even without the final LNG aspect of the project.
Jeff,
Great point. LNG per mmbtu is frequently 3 to 4 times, in some cases 5 to 6 times, as much as natural gas per mmbtu.
Bless you, Robert, for trying, but it’s pretty clear you don’t have answers either.
.
Look, it’s this simple: Lay down serious money for a big ticket item: home, car, computer, pipeline, spouse, airplane, politician, etc., you better have some idea what it will and won’t do, or you could wind up with a nasty, expensive, life-changing surprise through nobody’s fault but your own.
.
Caveat emptor, in other words. Is there a problem with that?
.
We’re buying 25% of something really, really expensive that could bite us in the ass because we have no idea what it will and won’t do. The damned company salesmen won’t even tell us. Our so-called representatives won’t tell us, hell’s bells, we don’t trust them to tell us the straight story about anything else to date, what’s different now?
.
Sure and it may well be the best thing since sliced bread, but we just don’t know. That, Robert, is problematic.
.
Get the picture now?