Alaska cannot afford its expensive dreams

The weekend headline in Anchorage said an Alaska North Slope natural gas pipeline project “could be closer than ever, Alaska politicians say.”

The first clue was “Alaska politicians say.” No offense, but pinning your hopes on what politicians say in an election year is like believing your kid really cleaned up his room like you asked. The kid will tell you what you want to hear to avoid punishment, just like a candidate will tell tall tales and exaggerate to avoid losing an election.

The only difference being the politician should know better.

Sure, a gas pipeline project may be a smidgie closer to success than it was three months ago, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent global oil and gas markets into a frenzy, with buyers worried about supply and paying high prices for whatever is available. The pain is at the pump when you pay more than $100 to fill up the tank on your pickup truck or SUV, or when you see that U.S. natural gas prices recently hit 14-year highs.

But this year’s short supply and high prices do not mean the multibillion-dollar Alaska project is suddenly attractive to investors that shunned the venture for years. Nor does it mean that companies want to put billions into Arctic fossil fuel projects that will take a decade or more before making a return on investment. Besides, there is no shortage of natural gas in the world, and much of it is more accessible and cheaper to develop than an Alaska project.

In fairness, this summer’s politicians are not the first to say the Alaska venture is closer than ever. Then-Gov. Sean Parnell, at an industry conference in Anchorage about a dozen years ago, said the state was at the 20-yard line and driving to the goal of building the gas line. Skeptics in the audience figured Parnell was turned around and didn’t realize he was at his own 20-yard line, still 80 yards to a score.

Alaskans have been waiting for the jobs and tax riches of a natural gas pipeline for more than half a century. That dream started several years after the Southeast timber industry took off in the late 1950s with pulp mills in Ketchikan and Sitka, sawmills in Wrangell, Ketchikan and elsewhere, and logging camps scattered throughout the region.

The pulp mills closed a quarter-century ago, some of the sawmills lasted a little longer. The industry is gone, relegated to small timber sales, if that. The economics and politics have moved on from logging. The economic damage to Southeast is not the point. Adapting and dealing with reality is the future for the region. Tourism, fishing, health care jobs, remote work, sustainable food harvests of kelp, shellfish and local seafood processing are the future.

Just as Southeast is moving from its past to its future — not without pain and challenges, of course — the state, particularly its politicians, need to accept that investors are not looking to risk their companies on one of the most expensive natural gas projects in the world. Or risk strong public opposition to building in the Arctic. Or risk that much of the world is turning away from fossil fuels in the decades ahead.

Alaska cannot afford to cling to old dreams of what could have been. And just because the state has spent close to $1 billion on gas line hopes and dreams in the past 20 years is no reason to keep writing checks. This election year, maybe the best candidates will talk honestly about dreams that actually might come true someday. That would help Alaska get closer than ever to reality.