Alaska LNG Project Update
by
Ben Boettger, Peninsula Clarion
AGDC, a state-owned corporation, was a 25 percent partner in the previous plans to build an approximately 800-mile pipeline to move liquified natural gas (LNG) from the North Slope to an export terminal in Nikiski. After the project’s other partners — oil companies BP, Exxon Mobile, and ConnocoPhillips — decided not to invest in it after an unfavorable economic analysis in September 2016, the state became the sole participant in Dec. 2016. On April 17, AGDC filed an application for the project with the permitters of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
AGDC Vice President for Communications Rosetta Alcantra said AGDC plans to be finished permitting by Dec. 2018.
“Once we get the authorization, we are going to be moving forward with construction,” Alcantra said. “Where does that leave your community and other communites? That has still to be defined. The goal is we’re going to have an eight year construction period.”
Fritz Krusen, Vice President of AGDC’s Alaska LNG project, said the project aspires to start construction by Jan. 21, 2019.
LEFT COLUMN STORY: Alaska’s Government Owned LNG Scheme Determined To Begin Construction, Early 2019
OUR COMMENTARY

Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro

Bill Walker, Governor of Alaska. NGP file photo by Dave Harbour.
It’s pretty simple really. Alaska’s government-owned energy project says it “aspires” to BEGIN CONSTRUCTION in less than two years.
Some might say, “Wow, that’s gutsy!”
However, we say a ‘gutsy’ moniker doesn’t really apply when you enjoy a very high government salary in a depressed economy while risking other people’s money — not your own — on an economically infeasible project.
We would say it seems a little impertinent for a bureaucrat-run project to proclaim a plan to begin construction, when 1) the state operating budget is underwater, and 2) the legislature has not funded the project’s construction, and 3) required federal permits are not in hand, and 4) the project is in an early study phase, and 5) there is no viable financing plan visible, and 6) when consolidation of necessary pipeline terminus lands is incomplete, and 7) the Asian gas market seems fully supplied with low cost LNG, and 8) when Alaska’s major producers say the project is untimely, and 9) when, according to all present indications, the project is not viable.
Ludicrous.
Alaska’s revenue continues declining in a low-oil-price environment. The state’s operating budget continues to grow while the Alaska State House of Representatives refuses to entertain scores to hundreds of valid public spending reforms. The result: Alaska is in fiscal crisis and any 8-year gas pipeline construction schedule — even if it were feasible — could not come to the rescue in time to alleviate the spending/revenue mismatch. And the 8-year time clock would not likely begin until early 2019 — assuming that all permits were in place and all feasibility, financing and marketing issues resolved by then.
The problem with a bureaucracy trying to take control of such a world class project is that it cannot turn on a dime nor move nearly as efficiently as a private enterprise-controlled project. Furthermore, it is subject to if not highly susceptible to legislative second-guessing, political manipulation, corruption, blackmail, bribery, intimidation, nepotism, electoral changes in leadership, public meeting law constraints and a woeful lack of private market incentives. It is socialism pure and simple and we find it unlikely that the legislature will fund or guarantee funding of the project’s construction.
For more insight into the matter of government ownership of the energy industry, consult Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro.
The state needs to stop wasting money on its socialist LNG project and focus on solving its real world fiscal crisis.
-dh
…from the Publisher. Please note!
Since our goal is accuracy for our archives, we invite readers to send us any factual additions / corrections / comments that will improve accuracy of the statements made. Please distinguish between statements of fact (which depend upon accuracy for credibility), and statements of opinion (which may vary from person to person).
After we have answered your concern, we’d appreciate your adding a comment, below, characterizing our handling of your thoughtful comment.
-dh
Leave A Comment