A response to "Canada races ahead on major oil pipeline to West Coast, while Alaska lawmakers stall over gasline taxes" by Suzanne Downing — thealaskastory.com, May 17, 2026

Suzanne Downing's May 17 article presents a tidy narrative: Canada is boldly acting on energy infrastructure while Alaska's Democrat-controlled legislature fumbles over gas taxes. It's a compelling political frame. It's also incomplete in ways that matter enormously to Alaskans trying to understand the real state of both projects.

Let's lay out the fundamentals.

Alaska LNG: The Real Numbers

Official cost estimate	$38.7 billion (AGDC, June 2020)
Likely real cost today	$75 billion or more

That 2020 estimate is now six years old — compiled before any of the following:

• Post-COVID construction cost inflation
• Steel tariffs doubling to 50% under Section 232
• A 20.7% year-over-year rise in steel mill products
• Fabricated structural metal costs rising over 63%
• Nonresidential construction input prices surging at a 12.6% annualized rate in early 2026

The project itself — 807 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline, a North Slope gas treatment plant, and a Nikiski LNG export terminal — is essentially thousands of miles of steel pipe built in one of the most remote and harsh environments on earth. Steel is the core input. Steel costs have been devastated by tariffs. Yet the official cost figure hasn't been updated publicly.

Critics close to the project, including commentary published in the Alaska Landmine, allege the revised internal estimate is $75 billion minimum — and that the Governor's office, Glenfarne, and AGDC are deliberately withholding that figure from Alaskans while simultaneously demanding the legislature agree to give up over $1 billion in annual property tax revenue.

Current project status:

• Developer: Glenfarne (75% stake), AGDC (25%)
• No final investment decision made
• Legislature and governor deadlocked over tax structure
• No committed upstream gas suppliers — ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and BP have not signed
• Cost estimate frozen at 2020 figures

Canada's West Coast Oil Pipeline: The Real Numbers

Official cost estimate	$20 billion (Premier Danielle Smith)
Independent analyst estimate	$35 billion (Studio.Energy/ATB Economics, 2026)
Likely real cost	Unknown — no private builder has signed on to validate any figure

Canada's pipeline — provisionally named the West Coast Oil Pipeline — would carry approximately 1 million barrels of oil per day from Alberta to the BC coast for export to Asian markets. An Implementation Agreement was signed May 15, 2026 by Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, with construction targeted to begin as early as September 2027.

But the headline obscures the same fundamental problems Alaska faces:

• No private builder. The two companies with the financial scale to build it — Enbridge and TC Energy spinoff South Bow — have stayed completely silent throughout all the political announcements.
• No route finalized. The pipeline must pass through British Columbia, whose premier has openly opposed it.
• No Indigenous consent. Coastal First Nations are opposed. Canada's constitutional duty to consult is unresolved.
• Cost estimates predate the tariff environment. The $20–35 billion range was compiled before the full weight of 50% steel tariffs was priced in.
• Alberta is acting as its own proponent — having budgeted just $14 million for the role — because no private company will do it.

A former Alberta energy minister has stated there is almost no chance a private company would build the pipeline without significant government financial backstops. That means taxpayers.

The Trans Mountain Warning No One Wants to Hear

Canada just completed a directly comparable project. Here's how the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion actually went:

Original estimate	CAD $5.4 billion
Final cost	CAD $34.2 billion — more than six times the estimate
Current status	Not recouping costs through tolls
Taxpayer exposure	$8.7–$18.8 billion over the project's life — up to $1,255 per Canadian household

Trans Mountain was built in a less severe cost environment than today's. It had an existing right-of-way. It had committed private shippers. It still ran six times over budget.

Both the Alaska LNG project and Canada's West Coast pipeline are greenfield projects, in more remote terrain, with no committed builders, using cost estimates that predate a historic surge in construction material costs. The Trans Mountain outcome isn't just a cautionary tale — it's the baseline expectation.

The Tariff Problem Both Projects Share

This is the piece of context most conspicuously absent from Downing's article.

Trump's tariff policies have fundamentally altered the construction economics of both pipelines:

• Steel mill products: up 20.7% year-over-year
• Aluminum mill shapes: up 33% year-over-year
• Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum: 50% on many products
• Overall nonresidential construction costs: up an estimated 8% aggregate, with tariff-exposed materials running far higher
• Every month of political delay means procurement costs climb further

For Alaska specifically, there is no domestic steel industry. Every foot of pipe must be imported or sourced domestically at tariff-inflated prices. The remote Arctic construction environment then multiplies those costs through logistics, weather, and permafrost engineering challenges that have no equivalent in the Lower 48 or even northern Canada.

The irony is sharp: the tariff policies that Downing's publication generally supports are simultaneously making both pipelines dramatically more expensive to build.

What the Article Got Right — And What It Got Wrong

What's accurate:

• Canada has made more political progress on its pipeline framework recently than Alaska has on the gasline tax structure
• The May 15 Carney-Smith agreement is real and represents genuine political momentum
• Alaska's legislature has been slow to resolve the gasline tax dispute

What's missing or misleading:

• Canada's pipeline has no private builder, no route, no validated cost estimate, and no Indigenous consent — the same fundamental gaps Alaska faces
• Both cost estimates are years out of date and almost certainly dramatically understated
• The tariff environment has materially worsened the economics of both projects since any official figures were published
• Canada's last comparable pipeline ran six times over budget and still burdens taxpayers
• Framing Canada as "racing ahead" when it has only signed agreements — not committed financing or a builder — is generous at best

The Bottom Line

Both projects face the same fundamental realities:

Factor	Alaska LNG	Canada West Coast Pipeline
Official cost estimate	$38.7B (2020)	$20–35B (2025–26)
Estimated real cost today	$75B+	$50B+ likely
Private builder committed	No	No
Financing secured	No	No
Route finalized	No	No
Indigenous consent	Unresolved	Opposed
Steel tariff impact	Severe	Severe
Cost estimate currency	6 years old	Pre-tariff surge

Downing's article isn't wrong that Alaska's legislature needs to resolve the tax structure question. That's a legitimate point. But holding up Canada as the model to follow — when Canada's project has nearly identical fundamental problems — doesn't serve Alaskans with an honest picture of where either project actually stands.

Both governments are currently better at announcing pipelines than building them. The fundamentals — costs, builders, financing, steel prices, Indigenous rights — don't care about press releases.

Until both projects can answer the basic questions of who builds it, who pays for it, and at what realistic cost in today's tariff environment, the only thing either government is racing ahead on is the announcement.

---

Sources: AGDC, Alberta.ca, OilPrice.com, Global News, The Narwhal, Alaska Public Media, Alaska Landmine, Cushman & Wakefield, Associated Builders and Contractors, International Institute for Sustainable Development