An artist’s rendering of a liquefied natural gas facility and marine terminal in Nikiski. (Image courtesy Alaska Gasline Development Corp.)

When Japanese, South Korean and Taiwanese representatives and three U.S. cabinet secretaries arrive in Alaska this week to discuss financing, building and utilizing gas from the proposed Alaska liquefied natural gas pipeline, they need to have an honest discussion about the project’s likely cost. The widely publicized $44 billion cost estimate comes from a 2015 analysis and, since then, materials — primarily steel and nickel alloys — labor and machinery costs have substantially increased.

From mid-2015 until February 2025, the price of iron and steel pipe increased 66%, and that percentage has gone up since February in part due to President Trump’s 25% tariff on imported steel. While this 66% figure does not apply specifically to the 42-inch steel pipeline needed for the Alaska LNG project, it shows that pipeline material prices have increased since the project’s cost estimate. During that same period, average hourly earnings for heavy and civil engineering construction workers who would build the project increased 43%. The costs of the project’s pumps, compressors, and other machinery have experienced similar trends. If we assume that a mix of these cost increases raises the project price by 50% since 2015, the project’s likely cost would be $66 billion in 2025 dollars.

Given uncertainties in future costs to build the 800-mile pipeline and its gas processing and LNG export facilities, a realistic cost estimate would not be a single number such as $44 or even $66 billion, but instead would be a cost range. It’s critical to estimate the worst — highest — and best — lowest — costs, as well as the most probable costs for key inputs. Worst and best-case cost determinations would involve expert modelling of the cost impacts of likely economic and employment trends, Alaska cost premiums, and any applicable tariffs.

To address the current out of date cost estimate, the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. announced on May 27 that the proposed pipeline’s lead developer, Glenfarne, would partner with engineering firm Worley to prepare “a final cost estimate for the Alaska LNG Pipeline in sufficient detail to achieve (a) Final Investment Decision.” Despite the need for transparency for outside experts to evaluate the adequacy and comprehensiveness of the 2015 cost estimate for such a large public project, the corporation’s website does not contain documentation of how that estimate was developed. No nation should commit to finance, build or utilize gas from the proposed project without the ability for its own experts to evaluate the previous cost estimate and assess whether the upcoming cost estimate contains sufficient detail and analysis of key inputs.

As an engineer who has worked as a watchdog over Alaska’s oil and gas development for more than 20 years, I have seen the state of Alaska and federal administrations decide not to provide the public with all relevant facts, data, and impacts if such information would not support a pro-development position. Withholding relevant information and/or not providing realistic cost numbers during important negotiations is unacceptable.

Lois Epstein, P.E., is an Alaska-licensed engineer who is president of LNE Engineering and Policy, an Anchorage-based consulting firm with tribal and environmental organizations as clients. She serves on the boards of the Pipeline Safety Trust and the Alaska Public Interest Research Group.

• • •

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.