NO AK LNG
The AK LNG pipeline is a proposed gasline that would run from the North Slope to Nikiski. It would cost at least $44 billion. While it is sometimes touted as a solution to Alaska’s energy crisis, it would not come online in time to meet the gap left by un-renewed contracts with Hilcorp for Cook Inlet natural gas, and it has continued to leak almost $500 million of public money, all while failing to bring any energy online that could actually help lower energy prices for Alaskans.
Although the Glenfarne group has committed to the front end engineering design studies (with the promise of a $50 Million backstop from the state of Alaska if they don't end up developing), the idea that this pipeline would be of any economic benefit to the state is still wildly optimistic. In comparison to other projects on the horizon, it is one of the most expensive, still would require buyers (more than the non-binding letters of interest currently being signed by Asian governments to ease trade tensions with the Trump admin) as well as gas producers (the one currently onboard, through a conditional agreement, does not currently produce any oil or gas).
Despite the project being economically unfeasible and bad for Alaskans, now the Trump administration is pressuring the state to develop. Alaskans need to stand up and stop this project for good.
Contact your legislators today and tell them that you don’t want the pipeline and to stop funding AGDC.
NEW REPORT OUT NOW: Alaska’s Pointless Pipe Dream
This new report concludes that there is no plausible economic argument or benefit to continue chasing the state’s many years-long efforts to push through this dangerous pipeline.
Read the full report at the link below:
Get involved in the movement to stop the AK LNG Pipeline!
-
The AK LNG project would expand the Point Thomson field on the North Slope and require a new gas treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay. From there a pipeline would bisect the state to Coldfoot, then Livengood and across the Minto area, following the railroad and Parks Highway near Nenana, Healy and down under the Cook Inlet to Nikiski, where a new liquefaction plant would turn natural gas into LNG for the international market. None of this is possible without extreme government subsidies - public money that should be going toward the rapid renewable energy transition we need.
-
The Alaska LNG gas export project would cause climate pollution greater than 10 times that of the Willow project with as much as 2.7 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the lifetime of the project.
If Alaska decarbonized except for this project, our emissions would still triple, making this a massive carbon bomb.
AK LNG's path to profitability directly clashes with the scientific consensus that carbon emissions will need to be reduced 40-60% by 2030 to keep global warming at manageable levels. -
Over the many years of AK LNG proposals, the state has considered countless ways to make it work. But the reality is, the numbers just don’t pan out, and interest in the pipeline is driven by politics, not market demand.
The most recent proposal involves private energy company Glenfarne Group doing the initial FEED (Front End Engineering Design) studies, with no commitment to actually build the pipeline.
Says oil and gas analyst Larry Persilly, "The fact that the Glenfarne Group is interested in the Alaska LNG project does not change the reality that it is a costly and risky endeavor the market shows no indication of wanting or needing… It would be one of the most expensive LNG projects in the world. It could not deliver any gas until the early 2030s. Its construction cost estimates are old. LNG demand in Japan -- long seen as Alaska's best hope for marketing its gas -- is in steady decline. There are many lower-cost options for LNG buyers in Asia. If private investors want to give it a try, good for them. But the state can ill afford to burn through any more money speculating on this boondoggle.”
The AK LNG project has wasted at least $500 million of public money that could have been put toward renewable energy resources that would already be producing power for Alaskans. As we face a massive energy crisis and at the same time, a formidable state budget crisis, it’s time to put down the pipe dream and invest in real solutions for Alaskans.
-
Pipelines displace people and are culturally violent towards Alaska Native people, especially women, children and gender non-conforming people via the creation of “man camps” - temporary worker housing which places outsiders in communities they have no connection with. This has been shown to lead to increased rates of violence towards members of these communities.
-
Tell your legislators: Fund Alaskans, not a pipe dream! We don’t need to keep spending millions of state dollars on a handful of AGDC salaries and benefits to support the ill-advised AK LNG project. We need to fund education, energy infrastructure and healthcare, and the services Alaskans need.
Read the full report on why no version of the LNG Pipeline is economically feasible. Here are some highlights to share with legislators:
Nearly $500 million of Alaskan state funds have been poured into AGDC with no substantive results (and estimates of over $1 billion into different iterations of this pipeline proposal overall). AGDC, whose president is the highest paid state employee, has been a waste of state money since the beginning. Continuing to spend state funds to support it is taking funding away from critical needs like education, health, and energy infrastructure.
We are facing an energy crisis, and this pipeline will not solve it. The current proposal with Glenfarne Group, a relatively small private energy company, agreeing to do the FEED (front end engineering design) studies, does not guarantee the project will be built or that North Slope gas would arrive in time to prevent a natural gas shortage. Even if North Slope gas did reach Southcentral on schedule in 2031, it would be too late to fill a supply gap that could begin as early as this year. Alaska instead needs to use these funds to invest in reliable and rapidly scalable forms of renewable energy, which will actually help to meet our current energy shortfalls, decrease costs, improve the health of our communities and increase Alaska’s energy autonomy.
The LNG Pipeline doesn’t make economic sense. Gas from an in-state pipeline would be the same price or likely far more costly than imported LNG, and the pipeline project would cost at least ten times as much to build as an LNG import project. The projected costs do not even factor in spur lines to major communities, like Fairbanks, or upgrading infrastructure in homes that are not currently outfitted for LNG.
Tell your legislators: Fund Alaskans, not a pipe dream!
In the past, legislators have been reluctant to cut funding for AGDC, seeing it as politically safer to toss them a few million every year, even though it’s only going to a handful of salaries to keep alive a pipe dream that will never pan out. Legislators haven’t gotten enough pushback for this choice. They need to understand that funding AGDC is not the risk-free, crowd-pleasing choice. It should not be their default tendency, and it does harm to the state not only by draining away funds, but by legitimizing a bogus solution to our real energy problems.
We don’t need to keep spending millions of public dollars on a handful of AGDC salaries and benefits with nothing to show for it. We need to fund education, real energy infrastructure, healthcare, and other services that will keep Alaskans in the state.