The Alaska LNG project has finally received the federal environmental impact statement for an 800-mile gasline from the North Slope to Nikiski.
After six years, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published the final EIS, which is a required analysis of the project’s environmental impacts and associated mitigation.
The EIS is a big step toward gaining federal approval required to construct and operate the project. FERC is scheduled to issue the final order for Alaska LNG in June for the project, which has been estimated to cost between $40-65 billion.
At current market prices, the gasline may not pencil out for the private sector, however.
Former Gov. Bill Walker had put the Chinese government and its associated financial institutions into the driver’s seat on the project with various signed agreements, all of which have been shelved by the Dunleavy Administration, which has returned to the “private sector first” model.
“The final EIS is a milestone in the Alaska LNG permitting process – a process still with significant hurdles,” said Gov. Mike Dunleavy.
“I appreciate the diligence of the AGDC team throughout this process. We look forward to reviewing the EIS and receiving the record of decision from FERC, at which point we will evaluate our next steps. FERC licensure is an important component in determining if Alaska LNG, which must be led by private enterprise, is competitive and economically advantageous for development.”
The project faces significant headwinds as bank after major bank has announced they will no longer be involved with projects involving oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. UBS, a Swiss bank, joined Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Chase Morgan in crossing Alaska’s oil and gas economy off of its list of future investments.
The Center for Biological Diversity issued a statement opposing the project, saying it would be bad for Alaska, polar bears, and whales.
More information about Alaska LNG, the EIS, and the permitting process for the project can be found at Alaska-LNG.com.
The building of a huge new Expensive Gas pipeline requires Funding. With the various investment banks refusing to fund. It looks like a dead-beat program. Such a huge pipeline expense cannot be funded by Alaska.
Now for a far more efficient and much less expensive and fundable alternative. Deliver LNG by air transport from point of origin to final destination, round the globe. Recall the ancient Hindenburg Hydrodegen craft which crashed before ww2? Now non explosive gases are available i.e. Helium. Likewise very light extra strong bulletproof metals are available for the construction of the transport container.
Cut out the huge expense and Alaska keeps all the profit, 25% into the People’s Permanent Fund, 50% to the state budget and 25% into the State investment fund, (withdrawals only allowed with an 80% vote in favour).
Why isn’t this option being pursued?
Best to go to FERC.gov and read the information that has stacked up over the years. Very informative and much better than everyone’s articles with personal opinions. Great history……
This gas will remain in the ground until long after we are all gone. Uneconomic, and going out of favor due to carbon constraints.
I’m dying to know what better economic option there is out there on the face of the planet that will heat my house. Electric? Right now, that is produced by using NG and is expensive. High efficiency NG and/or propane heat units are the best and most affordable.
Sir, natural gas may be very economical for you personally. But as an investment, the North Slope LNG project is amongst the least competitive in the world when compared to others. See the Wood MacKenzie report delivered to the State several years ago. Generally, LNG plants are located close to the source of gas and at tidewater. The need to build a long pipeline just to get the gas to the liquefaction facility kills the project economically, at least for private enterprise. Government ownership may improve the economics a bit due to certain tax advantages, but not a lot.
Natural gas is a rising fuel source. The natural gas on the North Slope is uneconomic because the amount of natural gas available in easy to reach and less expensive areas. Natural gas is decidedly not going out of favor with anybody but out of touch environmentalist who think wind and sun can provided 100 times more than they actually can. Natural gas will be around and used more than it is today for generations to come.
Indeed natural gas will continue to be used for a long time out of necessity, but not out of desire. The inexorable pressure to limit carbon emissions will eventually take its toll on the use of hydrocarbon fuels. Look around, and you will see banks unwilling to lend for new hydrocarbon projects, municipalities considering limiting new residential gas hookups, and major oil companies like Alaska’s (departing) BP desperately trying to wean themselves off of oil and gas, and into renewables. They see the future, and the existential threats that they face.
True, but one question remains that this web site did not address.
That is, why are people employed a Alaska LNG, with the department when this dream is dead.
That’s too easy.
Corporate welfare is promoted regardless of the reality and/or despite the negative cost benefit ratio by every Republican government.
Cue up another doomed Alaska mega-project to join with all the rest of the same.
Does anyone remember why oil went to tidewater at Valdez? Ice free port.
Evidently, we have forgotten that Cook Inlet was not ice free in the winter, meaning an icebreaking capable LNG tanker like the Russians had built in Korea.
The All-Alaska natural gas pipeline project went down TAPS with a spur across the Denali and down to Palmer from Glenallen. Litigation free, all permits in place, and then we elected dear Sarah who abandoned the project, but used it to get herself elected.
Parnell then backed Harry Noah’s garden hose, which became AGDA and the project that will not pencil no matter how we delude ourselves.
What will pencil is a poly pipe, which I understand the U.S. is finally approving. All over BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan. About time we figured it out.
Dunleavy needs to look at the facts and stop listening to IDIOTS. Best and brightest my posterior.
Running a pipeline from the slope to anywhere south won’t pay for itself for a generation or more, whether it’s made out of steel or plastic. The market is flooded with cheap gas.
One can’t help to notice that these banks decide, because of their “collective conscience” of some kind of morals, that they can and will not fund such activities as oil and gas. In the same way, a baker or florist decides he’d rather not offer his or her direct services to something they have a conscience about with his/her own morals.
And here is the rub: The banks get a pass. The others get their businesses ruined.
That’s the thing about capitalism and conservatism. It’s voluntary. The banks should get a pass. They can decide. The contrast is when liberal social justice folks want an INvoluntary society. People must be forced to do what they tell them to do.
We have a word for that. Why do folks think bringing back slavery is such a good idea?
Of course, having the government build a pipeline seems good to them too. They like using other people’s money without their permission. A private company only uses other people’s money WITH permission. We have a word for that too. And most of us were taught at a young age to not steal.
The contrast of the Left and Right seems to get more and more stark with each passing month.
Can you get someone to parse that word salad?
Financing won’t be an issue if there is a commercial agreement with a good credit rating.
Why? Because public money is needed to subsidize folly?
Comments are closed.