By REP. BILL ELAM
Alaska has always been a state of enormous potential. But potential alone doesn’t power homes, create jobs, build roads, or fund schools. For decades, Alaskans have looked to the vast natural gas reserves on the North Slope as a game-changing opportunity. Today, that opportunity is no longer theoretical; it’s real, it’s permitted, and it’s ready.
The Alaska LNG Project (AKLNG) is now one of the most strategically important infrastructure efforts in the United States. It’s fully permitted, shovel-ready, and attracting growing international interest. The project includes an 807-mile pipeline from the North Slope to Nikiski, capable of transporting 3.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, representing a volume large enough to meet the annual residential needs of more than 15 million U.S. households. With federal approvals in place and global demand rising, the conditions for success have never been stronger.
President Donald Trump recently issued an executive order designating Alaska LNG as a national strategic priority. He underscored its significance not just for Alaska’s economy, but for America’s energy independence and national security. In 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy extended Alaska LNG’s export authorization through 2050, reaffirming federal commitment and enabling long-term contracts with key Asian markets like Japan and South Korea. In his March address to Congress, President Trump reiterated this support, sending a clear message: Alaska’s gas matters on the global stage.
And the world is listening. Asian nations are actively seeking long-term, stable LNG supply contracts. Alaska offers a unique advantage: secure, U.S.-produced energy with a shorter shipping route and higher environmental standards than competitors. From Nikiski, it’s only 8 to 10 days to Tokyo by sea, less than half the time it takes from the Gulf Coast. Alaska LNG also has one of the lowest upstream carbon footprints in the world. We’ve got a clear advantage, and now is the time to act.
The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) continues to advance the project, building commercial partnerships and progressing toward a final investment decision (FID) expected by year’s end. The next phase is execution: securing financing, finalizing offtake agreements, and putting Alaskans to work. Once it’s built, AKLNG means good-paying jobs for Alaskans, billions in new revenue, and reliable energy for the future. The project is expected to create more than 10,000 construction jobs at its peak and support over 1,000 permanent positions once operational. Independent studies estimate that AKLNG could generate up to $26 billion in direct and indirect economic activity during construction and operation phases.
The LNG export terminal planned for Nikiski — right in the heart of District 8 on the Kenai Peninsula — represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans. It will create construction jobs, long-term pipeline and plant operational jobs, and economic growth that will ripple throughout our communities. According to AGDC, the Nikiski facility alone could contribute more than $300 million annually in wages and local economic output, which would significantly bolster our tax base, fund infrastructure, and support local schools. But its impact doesn’t stop here. This project will benefit all of Alaska, sending our energy to the world while bringing revenue and reliability back home.
But this project is about more than just economics. It’s about strengthening America’s energy posture, reducing global dependence on authoritarian regimes for energy, and delivering cleaner-burning fuel to our allies. It’s about ensuring Alaska plays a central role in a more stable, secure, and sustainable energy future.
That window, however, won’t stay open forever. LNG markets are competitive. Other nations are moving forward with their own projects. If Alaska hesitates, we risk falling behind and losing this opportunity entirely. We’ve spent decades getting to this point. The permits are in place. The world needs our resources and energy, and our communities are ready to work, to lead, and to be part of something that powers Alaska’s future.
Now is the time to deliver. This isn’t just a pipeline. It’s our shot at putting Alaska on the map, leading in energy, and building lasting prosperity for the next generation. And to be clear, one of the few things that could still derail this project is political interference. The state legislature must resist the urge to meddle. This project has momentum, private sector backing, and federal support. Let’s not throw up roadblocks. Let’s get out of the way and let Alaska succeed.
Rep. Bill Elam serves District 8, Nikiski, on the Kenai Peninsula.
Bill,
Why should any conservative minded person in Alaska listen to you?
Yesterday you kowtowed to the NEA and voted to override Dunleavy’s veto. You enabled reckless spending without accountability. Not only that but I saw you grinning from ear to ear in the process. What favors did you get in return?
I’m a strong proponent of developing Alaska’s resources and energy prospects, but the problem here is that you’ve proven yourself to be under the control of a union clearly focused on taking more money out of our pockets instead of improving the quality of education of our children.
Your actions open the door to this question: What’s your hidden agenda on the LNG project?
David,
Perhaps he voted to override due to the fact that he believed the majority of his constituents favored an override.
When was the last time Alaska succeeded at anything?
Representative Elam,
Just a couple of little details before we move forward:
1) Price at saltwater LNG flange?
2) Term at this price?
Thank you for your enthusiasm.
It doesn’t matter, Gary. Fairbanks was literally bypassed by this BS project, and this project isn’t remotely economic.
Let’s be honest Representative Elam: Alaska’s current leadership is nowhere near ready for what’s coming. Just take a look at the team surrounding Governor Dunleavy — Treg Taylor? Nancy Dahlstrom? Adam Crum? Jordan Schilling? This is who we’re supposed to count on in a time of major transition? Who’s actually steering the ship here? From the outside, it looks like no one’s doing much more than keeping the seats warm.
We’re staring down the barrel of a massive opportunity — and a potential disaster — as federal policy shifts in our direction. But instead of rising to the occasion, Dunleavy’s hand-picked political amateurs are treating governance like a high school student council meeting.
Still not convinced? Jordan Schilling is somehow still drawing a state paycheck after his profanity-laced, weed-fueled online rant. That’s the standard now of Dunleavy’s team! ‘https://x.com/alaskalandmine/status/1950397005173575841?s=46
This isn’t just a tough moment — it’s a slow-burning emergency. Time to stop pretending otherwise.
This should have been addressed when they built the tans alaska pipeline, not decades later
As others have pointed out, this Rep. sold out to the NEA, and he can’t be trusted.
I’ll point out some of the obvious flaws in this ridiculous puff piece.
1. The pipeline project was fully permitted by the private sector (thank Wally Hickel and Mead Treadwell) through Yukon Pacific to the deep water, ice free port of Valdez. This is important because a deep water, ice free port has none of the hazards of going to Nikiski. The route to Valdez also went through Fairbanks and North Pole instead of bypassing this community as was done by the overpaid government idiots at AGDC. That project was also sabotaged by Parnell who was happy to focus on a pipeline to the Lower 48. That project was such uneconomic BS that the real reason for pushing it was clear: Sabotage any real LNG project from Alaska by studying stupid.
2. But Alaska isn’t done wasting time on stupid stuff. Alaska has wasted years on this insane project, that bypasses Fairbanks, with a new route, that goes to the ice choked, unsafe waters of the Cook Inlet. Worse, this project is not even remotely economic. This Rep. hasn’t a clue about pipeline tariffs, or the multi billion dollar impact they would have on Alaska’s revenues from the sale of our gas. In this case, because this project is not economic the tariffs would be so massive that we’d almost be guaranteed to not have any revenue from the gas sales. That would be unconstitutional, too.
The best project for Alaska right now is to take LNG off the North Slope with ice breaking LNG tankers at a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost of a 807 mile long pipeline. No pipeline needed. No compressor stations needed. A North Slope project could be done years and years faster, too. Alaska could realize billions in revenue because the North Slope project would be vastly more economic.
So why aren’t we doing what the Russians have been doing for over ten years? Corporations that wanted Alaska LNG turned to Russian LNG from Yamal, using… ice breaking LNG tankers.
Alaska is so ineptly run and corrupt, its sickening.
FINALLY(!!!) … Someone else thinking – believing that the best path forward is to ship LNG directly from Slope via Ice Breaker escorts, just like they’ve successfully been doing in Russia. Eliminating 800-mi of Pipeline, eliminating multiple Compressor Stations, and delivering the project // product to market much faster will certainly give this potential project an economic – viable chance of becoming reality.
As for AKLNG, the project needs to be economically viable so as to compete with other WorldWide Projects. I’m guessing it needs to be delivered at a cost of approximately $1B/mtpa (or below). Currently, I believe that cost estimate is at $2.2B/mtpa. So, we need to get creative and find solutions to reduce the cost or else, it’ll just be another … “Pipe Dream!”
Something to consider is that terminating both pipelines in one location puts all our eggs in one basket. Expect the unexpected.
N,
As you know I hate to ruin a good rant, but LNG was shipped out from next door to this location starting in 1969 so there is a long history that can easliy be referenced if a person were so inclined. Also if you are concerned about shipping out of an ice free port and you suggest shipping out of the Arctic Ocean, one has to wonder about your advice seeing as the Arctic is known to have ice year round (manbearpig soothsaying be damned), and there isn’t an actual port in the Arctic that could currently handle such a project. I will say that I personally agree that shipping from the Arctic makes more sense for part of the year than a year round pipeline to Nikiski, but I’m also not familiar with how shutting down or storing LNG for months on end waiting for the right ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean would be handled even with ice breakers…do they just lay everyone off every year for 6 months, can the wells support such activity? Speaking of ice breakers, how many would be needed and how long would they take to build, they’d need to be Jones Act compliant is there a US manufacturer who could source the amount of material and labor required to build 3-5 heavy ice breakers in a handful of years, if there is then why is the Coast Guard buying used light ice breakers and hoping to have another built in 5-6 years?
Regarding the economics it must be noted that natural gas prices and LNG prices are not the same thing, global LNG prices are in the range that supports this project. I have been extremely pessimistic about this project for a very long time, while I still have doubts there are many many boxes that are being checked that show this project is feasible, even if against the will of the green energy cabal that has held development hostage for decades.
Steven,
Happy to educate you- and the wider audience.
The Jones Act doesn’t apply when we are shipping to other countries. The Lower 48 doesn’t need expensive LNG from Alaska- they have cheap shale gas which can be had for $2 to $3 dollars per MMBTU. Why would they want to pay 4-5 times that price?
Making LNG is not cheap- one uses 10 percent of the feed gas just for the liquefaction.
The reason for ice breaking LNG tankers is pretty obvious- one no longer needs to worry about ice as as opposed to non- LNG tankers. Conoco used to ship LNG out of Nikiski, but that was a very small scale operation, and that operation folded for poor economics and there wasn’t a massive, 807 mile long gas line to worry about. Let that sink in.
The Russians run ice breaking LNG tankers year round. There is no reason we could not.
When you are running ice breaking LNG tankers, the traditional port concept doesn’t work. A small man made island far enough off shore to be in reasonably deep waters is all that is needed. That island would hold the liquefaction equipment, tanks, etc. Ideally that island would be 3 miles out- to avoid the nightmare property taxes of the North Slope Borough.
So there you have it Steve, the basics. Note that your assumptions about the economics of this (Alaska) project are not connected to the reality of the current market. A competitor project- Kittimat LNG just started up, and had a $31.2 billion (US) capex. This AGDC boondoggle would have a vastly more expensive capex. But forget Canada- Russia has LNG that doesn’t have the massive capex or opex of this AGDC boondoggle. How on earth would we ever compete with that?
No one that knows this industry thinks this is a credible project. The overpaid clowns at AGDC will keep this scheme going as long as they can pull down their half million dollar per year state funded salaries.
N,
Thanks for the response, you offer quite a few contradictory statements on this subject. Another one being that you bemoan bypassing Fairbanks but then advocate for bypassing all of Alaska, an interesting take to be sure.
It comes down to what we want for Alaska- looking 50 years out, what will we do for revenue, and home heating?
The lower the cost of moving LNG out of Alaska, the higher the netback for Alaska (revenue). A $70 billion dollar project with the massive opex of this BS pipeline project ensures massive tariffs, including the equity and debt returns that will be part of the tariff. All of that is deducted from the revenue Alaska could expect from the sale of our gas- costing us billions.
Alaska needs to be following the lead of Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Those arctic nations are moving towards ground source heat pumps that are now efficient enough to work well in cold climates. Energy (electricity) to operate those systems ideally would come from renewable hydroelectric and also from gas power turbines with gas from the Cook Inlet where we have trillions of cubic feet of natural gas- and a minimal capex for getting that gas out.
In a perfect world we should be selling all the gas we can and not burning it when better, cleaner, options are available. The more we can invest in the Alaska Permanent fund from the sale of non renewable resources, the better for our long term survival.
Are you still talking about Natural Gas ??? This gas been talked about for years ??? And we have all these other things ???
No bank is going to finance this thing because the ROI is not there. The investment is too damn big for the thing to make money in this market. If it was a money maker, the suppliers would build it. If the state backs the loan with the Permanent Fund, the fund will be raided to pay the loan. I find it criminal that a cost/revenue analysis is never accompanying any of these cheer leader arguments for this gas line. Which supplier has signed on to supply 3 billion cubic feet of the gas, the gas the suppliers use to get oil out of the ground, for this project? It would be nice if it penciled out but it does not.
So why does everyone touting this project continue to avoid mentioning, let alone including, the people who actually own North Slope natural gas – Exxon, Conoco and Hilcorp? Elected and appointed state officials have accumulated hundreds of thousands of airline miles, at state expense, visiting natural gas users across the Pacific Rim: Were Exxon, Conoco and Hilcorp invited, if not then why not, and if so why did they turn down the trips? Is an Alaska LNG project the one business deal that doesn’t require a competent and willing seller? Does Representative Elam know the answers but forgot to mention them?
White House energy, commerce and environmental officials visited the North Slope and attended widely publicized events in Anchorage but if Exxon, Conoco and Hilcorp officials were present no one, not even the Alaska press, thought to speak to them.
AGDC officials are the highest paid State of Alaska employees, and quite possibly they are the most highly paid state officials in the US. How much North Slope natural gas is being produced by AGDC today? What is the combined total amount of North Slope natural gas these fellows have sold during their careers? Are we to believe that these state employees can somehow wrest the needed quantity of North Slope gas away from the people producing and using it today, or has AGDC secretly arranged to buy the needed quantity from these people? What’s the offering price for that gas, or don’t the intended buyers visited by state officials care about the price? Could Representative Elam get back to us with the answers?
Long story short, leases are contingent upon production and a failure to sell gas for a reasonable profit would be sufficient for potential lease cancelation. Producers are compelled to sell product.
Bill, Bill, Bill. Take your AI-written op-ed that is trying to pivot from your betrayal of the government and shove it into the shredder. We see exactly what you are doing here. You are trying to change the subject from your veto override vote. Bring on Ben Carpenter. We’ve had enough of you.
Steven, exactly right. Kubota is not correct in his point that Exxon, et. al, own the gas. They do not. Exxon only has a lease- hold interest. They can lose their lease for warehousing it- note the Pt. Thomson litigation when Exxon lied for decades about its intent to develop that gas field.
Elam is among the many ambidextrous lawmakers in Juneau. There’s something about the flights into that town that seems to tilt everyone to the left.
Time to being out the blame Obama/Biden Manifesto. plenty of projects worldwide, various financial and political barriers. not us tho
The biggest possible consumption point is being goof balled by the Orange Seagull, more important “squirrel nuts” to move on the 4D chess board, daily. a more patient person sees China blocking the world via Taiwan, quickly moving north into Siberia. I’d say before 2040.
no one else could consume our gas, DC maggots don’t have a clue
Who did you borrow the skirt and pom-poms from?