Private Fairbanks LNG Project Trumps Government Plan – Alaska Lawmakers Focus On Gas Projects


Crude Awakening: Money, Mavericks, and Mayhem in AlaskaWe have preordered the new book by respected Alaska Dispatch Co-Founders, Tony Hopfinger and Amanda CoyneCrude Awakening: Money, Mavericks, and Mayhem in Alaska


Federal Gas Pipeline Coordinator, Larry Persily (NGP Photo-r) will address Commonwealth North today: noon, ANGDA Conference Room, 411 West 4th Avenue, Yellow Sunshine Mall, Anchorage.  (More from ADN where Persily formerly served with distinction as a journalist and editor.  -dh)

Alaska State Legislature:

(Comment.  We hear from a reliable source that at a recent conference in San Antonio of the National Council of State Legislators a Member of our own Alaska State House of Representatives spoke against passage of a resolution supporting development of ANWR.  We herewith offer any legislator an opportunity to comment and correct the record.  -dh)


  1. Dan Fauske (NGP Photo-above) briefing, Anchorage LIO, Monday, August 15, Alaska Stand Alone Gas Pipeline Project Plan.
  2. Tony Palmer (NGP Photo-r) briefing, Anchorage LIO, Tuesday, August 16, AGIA gasline project, along with briefings on Cook Inlet Natural Gas Reserves.
  3. Larry Persily briefing, Anchorage LIO, Wednesday, August 17, status of Alaska gas pipeline project federal coordination.
  4. Our Commentary: To keep the 2/3 empty Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) operating, new oil reserves are needed.  New oil can come from federal sources like ANWR, OCS, NPR-A — which the Obama Administration currently opposes.  New oil reserves could also come from state lands —  were the Legislature to act to improve the investment climate.  If certain legislators oppose ANWR and investment climate improvement, TAPS cannot be sustained.  If TAPS is not sustained, the state operating budget (almost 90% dependent on oil) and the entire state economy (over 1/3 dependent on oil) will fail.  If TAPS is dismantled, removed and the right of way restored (DR&R, as required by Alaska law) and Alaska returns to a pre-pipeline population, no intrastate gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay will be required.  No big hydroelectric project will be needed.  Most state services will be dramatically curtailed.  The Permanent Fund will be dissipated.  The legislature will be managing a fiscal crisis never experienced by our citizens.  Is this logic not indisputable?   If it is, why don’t legislators act of one mind to improve the state investment climate and demand federal support for robust oil and gas development on federal lands?  -dh
Fairbanks LNG Links and References

Our Earlier Story and Doug Smith Commentary




Fairbanks News Miner by Matt Buxton.  The Alaska Gasline Port Authority board of directors voted unanimously this week to pass a resolution calling for the removal of a ballot proposition directing the agency to pursue trucking natural gas into the Fairbanks area.  The decision, made Wednesday, comes in advance of a special meeting of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly next week, where members will introduce and discuss an ordinance to remove Proposition 1 from the Oct. 4 ballot. … During discussion, board member Merrick Peirce, along with many other members, applauded the private partnership.  “What’s formed is a deal that’s better than we’ve could have ever envisioned,” he said. “This opens the door for the North Pole distribution area and that’d be great.”   As the port authority abandons a plan to truck natural gas, something it has explored for about two years, it will resume its pursuit of a natural gas pipeline to connect Prudhoe Bay, Fairbanks and Valdez.   The renewed focus is strengthened by a late-July analysis, from consultant Wood MacKenzie, showing a line to Valdez would be profitable and could bring the state of Alaska $65 billion over 30 years.

Leave A Comment

About the Author:

By | 2016-12-22T22:33:22+00:00 August 12th, 2011|AGIA, Commentary, Interstate Gas, Intrastate Gas, LNG, You Read It Here First|0 Comments