The future of the proposed Alaska LNG project could be decided by the end of the year, according to the private energy firm that last month acquired a majority participation in the development of the first phase of the export terminal and the estimated export gas of $ 44 million from a state entity.
The developer and operator of Energy Infrastructure based on New York, Glenfarne Group LLC, who agreed to buy a 75% participation in the Alaska Gasline Development Corp project. to the south -west of Anchorage. This installation will have the capacity to produce 20 million tonnes of GNL a year for transport through tank trucks to markets abroad, particularly in Asia.
The Alaska LNG project also includes the construction of a carbon capture plant based on the northern slope that Glenfarne says will eliminate and store 7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.
The first phase of the project, dear, which cost $ 11 billion, calls for the construction of a pipeline from the northern slope to the export site of the Kenai Peninsula. A state spokesman said that the project could create up to 12,000 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent operations work,
Glenfarne’s founder and CEO Brendan Duval has publicly stated that the project’s front design process, estimated to cost up to $ 150 million, will start early and last about six months, causing a final investment decision by the end of 2025. If Glenfarne chooses to pursue later development at that time, LNG’s deliveries could begin by 2031.
Arriving in Asia
Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand have been identified as potential customers for Alaska LNG production, although no official purchase agreement has been announced. After a top -notch meeting in Brussels on April 3, the United States, Japan and South Korea pledged to North -American investments in GNL to strengthen energy security and for mutual benefits, as they said in a joint statement.
Duval said that funding for construction and operation is expected to come from a “consortium” of private investors. The project is eligible for an 80%federal loan guarantee, authorized by the Investment and Infrastructure jobs law.
In the event that Glenfarne declines to move forward with Alaska LNG, the company will be able to raise up to $ 50 million from a “backstop” fund established by Alaska’s development entity last December.
Glenfarne currently has two other U.S. GNL projects underway. LNG Texas, an export facility of 4 million TPY in Brownsville, Texas, will begin operating in 2028 with Kiewit that serves as an engineering, hiring and construction contractor. A final investment decision on this project is expected later this year. Magnolia Magnolia’s export place of 115 hectares near Lake Charles, La.
Launched in 2010, the effort to develop Alaska LNG has occurred in part due to its great price, which caused the removal of original exxonmobil, BP and conocophillips. The State Developer continued to pursue the project alone, achieving federal approval by 2020.
The project prospects improved by 2022 with the release of a revised cost projection with a more favorable economic perspective, including a reduction of more than $ 6 billion in capital costs, along with a projected increase in GNL global demand, particularly in Asia, and the introduction of a new financing plan that includes a third -third -party misconception structure financed by the beginning of the third party financed by the third party. 70%.
The report stated that the construction of the pipeline would also provide an immediate solution to a shortage of natural gas supply that faces public services that provide energy in South-Center urban areas of Alaska. State officials and usefulness have warned that local sources are about to exhaustion, increasing the threat of service interruptions that occur as soon as next winter.
The executive order on the opening day of President Donald Trump prioritized the development of Alaska Natural Gas reserves, but the Alaska GNL project had also been supported by the Biden Administration, with the United States Department of Energy, renewing the existing approval last year after the environmental studies carried out after the final environmental statement of 2020.
This document found that the construction and operation of Alaska GNL would result in “temporary to permanent” environmental impacts, most of which would not be significant or would be reduced to less than “avoiding avoidance, minimization and mitigation.
The Sierra Club environmental defense groups and the Biological Diversity Center challenged Biden’s approval last year, claiming that he overcome the economic benefits of the project, but also the uncertainty of its impact on climate change. A Federal Appeal Court ruled against them.
