The debate surrounding the Alaska LNG Project includes quite a bit of constructive dialogue, but outliers like Bruce Tangeman view this project and Alaska’s future through a ‘failure-at-all-costs’ lens. His recent claims about the project’s readiness and transparency recycle long‑debunked talking points that undermine—not enhance—Alaska’s economic future.

Alaska has no shortage of self‑proclaimed Alaska LNG experts. Some prefer to argue that the project won’t succeed rather than offering any credible alternative for long‑term economic growth. Motivations vary, but the result is the same: a steady negative trickle that spreads an untenable status‑quo, no‑growth vision for Alaska.

These pundits routinely cite their own ‘expert’ calculations to claim fatal flaws in the project. Yet without direct involvement in the extensive technical, commercial, and regulatory work currently underway, presenting oneself as the definitive authority on this complex development is not expertise—it’s theater.

Competitive Taxation: The Real Barrier to Development

Mr. Tangeman and a handful of allies argue there is no justification for modernizing Alaska’s outdated property‑tax structure. But this ignores a critical fact: Alaska’s outdated oil and gas property taxes are roughly ten times higher than those in states where LNG projects have flourished.

This is not a rounding error—it is a big reason why private developers have walked away for decades. The ‘billion‑dollar giveaway’ rhetoric is mathematically indefensible. As the Department of Revenue has repeatedly made clear, 100% of nothing is still nothing. If Alaska insists on an uncompetitive tax regime, no developer will invest in this or any other natural gas project, and state coffers and the Permanent Fund will continue receiving exactly what we receive today: zero tax and royalty revenue.

The choice before lawmakers is straightforward: an unworkable tax structure and guaranteed failure or modernize policy and unlock billions in private investment. As the saying goes, if you aim for zero, you’ll get there.

The Modern LNG Developers

Another persistent fallacy from Tangeman and similar critics is the belief that only ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips were the only credible leaders for this project—a worldview stuck in 2014, when the U.S was a net LNG importer. Today our nation is the world’s largest LNG exporter – without Alaska.

The global LNG landscape has fundamentally changed. Today’s industry is driven by specialized developers – companies built to engineer, finance, and commercialize large‑scale energy infrastructure.

Glenfarne uses a modern model: an infrastructure-first company structured for efficient delivery, engineering excellence, and customer acquisition. Venture Global, a non‑entity 10 years ago, now operates one of the world’s fastest‑growing LNG portfolios with a similar business model.

Insisting the project cannot proceed without the legacy ‘Big Three’ is not just outdated – it is the exact mindset that has kept our North Slope gas stranded for generations.

The Project Is Closer to Construction Than Critics Admit

While opponents argue the project is not ‘ready to turn dirt,’ the actual work underway tells a much different story. Glenfarne has completed the engineering needed to sanction the Phase 1 pipeline, competitively bid major scopes, conditionally awarded contracts, and filed with FERC to begin construction as early as 2026.

The private sector is taking on 100% of the financial risk, investing millions, and advancing the project. Alaska has no exposure to cost overruns. Yet critics demand ever-moving proof thresholds while simultaneously inventing new reasons the project ‘must’ fail—revealing that the goal is not due diligence but delay.

Today’s Partnership Model Is Substantially Better for Alaska

Critics often compare today’s effort to the ExxonMobil-led project of a decade ago. But that comparison collapses under scrutiny. Then, the State was required to fund 25% of all development costs and assume major financial and cost overrun risks.

Today, AGDC has secured a 25% perpetual carried interest—with no additional state investment required. Alaska now holds a long‑term equity position without the multi‑billion‑dollar exposure. Rather than recognize this improved position, some legislators construct barriers to progress.

Conclusion: Alaska Must Choose Progress Over Paralysis

Harold Hollis recently warned the greatest risk to the Alaska LNG Project is not engineering, markets, or financing – it is the Legislature itself (The greatest risk to Alaska LNG? The Alaska State Legislature). That concern is now becoming reality as we close in on the end of the legislative session.

The House Resources Committee has engaged constructively. The Senate Resources Committee, however, has defaulted to a ‘paralysis through analysis’ strategy, proposing tax structures that would cripple the project before ground is even broken.

To secure a generational energy future for Alaska, we must abandon the defeatist chorus of those invested in failure and choose a path that supports growth, investment, and prosperity.

Mike Chenault serves on the board of the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation. He is a former member of the Alaska House of Representatives, serving from 2001 to 2019. During that time, he served as the body’s longest-serving Speaker of the House, from 2009 to 2017