
For a large portion of its route, the proposed in-state pipeline would largely parallel the path of the existing trans-Alaska oil pipeline, pictured here. (Bureau of Land Management photo)
Maybe it’s because of the winter we had, with its lingering cold and back-to-back storms, but I’ve been deep in spring cleaning this season. I’ve always hoarded papers — old handouts, notes and fliers — but I’m not organized enough to know what’s where, so it’s always a bit of a surprise where information shows up, and this year, I want to change that.
In March, around the time Gov. Mike Dunleavy introduced his bill asking the legislature to approve tax breaks for the proposed Alaska LNG pipeline, I uncovered a forgotten notebook from 2018. One page contains a statement from an Alaska Gas Development Corporation public meeting assuring attendees that long-term contracts with international buyers would be finalized by 2025. Another page, from another meeting later that year, outlines a timeline promising “first cargo” in late 2024.
These contradictory notes motivated me to dig through my personal archives, the unlabeled folders in beer boxes and stacks of undated notebooks, for more records of public meetings about this speculative pipeline. Concerned about the impacts the project would have on my neighborhood, Alaska more generally, and the planet, I attended Federal Energy Regulatory Commission meetings and AGDC public relations presentations in the Denali Borough throughout the regulatory process, and I was curious about what I wrote down.
What I found is often frustrating.
“That’s a good question, next time we’ll bring a geologist,” a FERC official said, in response to concerns about building a pipeline across the Denali Fault.
“That’s a good point, we should start thinking about Western Alaska energy costs,” AGDC said to people who had been thinking about it for decades.
Once, someone suggested a bike path could be built on top of the pipeline if its route paralleled the Parks Highway through the Denali Borough. But the bike path or the woman who proposed it were never mentioned again.
At another meeting, someone who had just arrived in Alaska from a pipeline project in Papua New Guinea told us, in response to questions about safety, that “you can pour [LNG] in a glass, boil it, and drink the water,” as if the question was about drinkability of gas that no one was able to ascertain we’d have access to for utilities, let alone consumption. He said we could learn more on YouTube, which is how I learned about local conflicts and displacements surrounding the Papua New Guinea gasline. In the margins, I wrote a note: “YouTube. No wonder he needed a new job.” They tossed around dates and dollar amounts like confetti. I wrote them down, often accompanied by question marks.
If this sounds disjointed, it’s because it has been.
Sometimes, presentations would focus on air quality in Asia, and frame Alaska gas, transported hundreds of miles before being shipped across the ocean, as the only viable solution to improving it. The next year, the emphasis would be on endangered polar bears, floating helplessly on diminishing sea ice, whose only hope was that Alaska could contribute methane rather than CO2 to the rapidly warming climate. But by 2022, all pretense of environmental concern had been abandoned, and the AGDC representative who visited Healy told us that investments in sustainability, or the Environmental, Social and Government framework “is killing everybody.” (“Where’s the bears lol” I wrote in my notes. But I think we all know it was never about the bears.)
But the image that has remained most consistent over the decade plus that I’ve been following this process is one I found on a printout of AK LNG-branded slides from 2015. It’s a 3×4 grid, each gray rectangle containing a dollar sign, and a yellow diagonal line representing a general upward trend. It’s accompanied by a second graph, again without numbers, whose bars get taller across an unmarked axis — showing supposed investment in local economies, though that investment was not promised, just vibes, and when asked for specifics, AK LNG representatives answered with vague statements about boroughs or regional corporations maybe stepping in.
According to this decade-old slide, the estimated cost of the project was $45-65 billion, which is quite a range, and interesting given that the number $44 billion keeps getting tossed around now, as if pipeline construction is the one thing that has miraculously gotten cheaper since 2015.
Following recent legislative hearings, and watching Glenfarne executives attempt to justify their asks for free gravel and tax-exempt passage across state, borough and private lands, it seems that the laughably vague dollar sign graphs are still the best available data. Glenfarne is simply the latest character in a saga that has outlived its welcome.
They haven’t sent out any brochures or hosted any meetings, but I’m trying to write down what they say anyway, so that a few years from now, I can flip though my now organized and labeled folders and highlight the dates that came and went, the promises made and abandoned, just the latest in an archive of corporate lies.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.






This is Mandy Moore looking back at her marriage to Ryan Adams.
There’s a sneaky beauty sale going on right now that you won’t want to miss.





Memorial Day weekend isn’t just the un-official start of summer, it also kicks off linen season. To celebrate, Abercrombie is throwing a site wide sale with up to 40% off summer staples, including…
Chrishell Stause is giving her candid thoughts on Katharine McPhee.