JUNEAU — The developer of the giant Alaska LNG project is telling federal regulators that it expects to begin construction in April, as part of a plan to build construction camps, access roads and close to 100 bridge crossings to support pipeline construction.

It’s part of Glenfarne’s ambitious schedule to start laying the steel pipe for the 800-mile gas line by the end of this year.

Some Alaska lawmakers are skeptical the work can happen by then, if at all.

Glenfarne has not announced a final investment decision to build the project, though it’s expected to cost at least $44 billion. That longtime cost estimate has recently been updated, but Glenfarne has said it won’t publicly release that information.

Glenfarne last month announced that it had signed several preliminary deals with gas producers and gas line builders, atop other preliminary deals with potential gas buyers. The agreements are nonbinding, but are viewed as key steps that could one day lead to binding agreements.

[Alaska LNG says it expects to start laying pipe as early as December]

Alaska lawmakers who are increasingly focused on the proposed project say they believe Glenfarne still needs to take important steps that could delay the project.

They say Glenfarne has not sought any support from the Legislature for Alaska LNG, though the company said in a statement Wednesday that it is pursuing “property tax reforms” with state and local leaders.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a project supporter, has said he plans to introduce a bill that would reduce the state’s oil and gas property taxes by 90% to assist the project.

A consultant for the Alaska Legislature, GaffneyCline, has said a property tax reduction could save the developer important money up front while additional state benefits that provide the project with “fiscal stability” may also be needed from the Legislature. GaffneyCline is a subsidiary of oil field service giant Baker Hughes, which has said it plans to provide equipment for the project and make a “strategic investment” in it.

Major questions for the project include: Who will pay for it? What steps must the Legislature take to support it? And when will binding contracts with gas buyers and suppliers be signed?

Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel, a Republican, said she doesn’t believe Glenfarne will keep to its schedule.

Glenfarne’s target of laying pipe by year’s end “is completely unrealistic,” she said told reporters Tuesday.

One hurdle the company has yet to pursue is certification from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska of its financial and managerial fitness, Giessel told reporters. That takes six months, she said.

The company also hasn’t provided the Legislature with any fiscal information that would help lawmakers understand more about the project, she said.

“There’s a lot more to know,” she said.

“I’m not even sure they can come to a final investment decision, in light of the fact that we haven’t even determined what our tax structure will be for this project,” she said.

Glenfarne’s filing, made with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week, does not represent a final schedule, said Tim Fitzpatrick, a spokesperson for Glenfarne, in an email Wednesday.

Rather, it shows how “early works” — initial construction — will be sequenced, he said.

He said the project is moving toward a final investment decision. That had originally been expected late last year.

Fitzpatrick also said Glenfarne faces no financial-fitness certification requirement before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.

“Alaska LNG is a FERC-regulated project so this RCA certification requirement is not applicable in this instance and as such has no bearing on Alaska LNG’s schedule,” Fitzpatrick said.

“Pending FERC authorization, we are moving forward with Early Works on a pace that will enable Alaska LNG to rapidly deliver reliable, affordable energy to Alaskans,” he said.

Tons of bridges and access roads

In its first phase, Alaska LNG would deliver North Slope natural gas to Railbelt Alaskans through an 800-mile pipeline, if it’s built. The cost has been estimated at $11 billion.

The final, more expensive phase would include construction of a plant and marine terminal in Nikiski, where gas can be super-chilled into liquefied natural gas, or LNG, for shipment to Asian markets.

The state of Alaska, through its Alaska Gasline Development Corp., is a 25% partner in the project. The state will also have the option to invest up to 25% in the project’s major facilities, each of which will cost several billion dollars.

Glenfarne, based in New York, disclosed its pipe-laying plans last month.

The filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provides new details about more immediate plans.

The company said construction for “early works” will start April 15, the filing shows.

Those activities include installation of 20 main construction camps and 46 sites to store pipes.

They include 98 bridge crossings that are up to 90 feet long, along with six specialized bridges.

Temporary and permanent access roads must also be built from ice and “granular fill material,” which can include sand or gravel.

Early construction includes 619 segments of access road, the filing says.

The information required to support the early activities will be filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on March 15, in an effort to obtain authorization, the filing says.

Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, a Democrat and chair of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, said she hasn’t heard of any support the Legislature might be asked to provide, if any, to support those early activities.

“With respect to man camps or access roads, I’m not aware of any requests from Glenfarne for any state support,” she said in an interview Tuesday.

“A lot of what they’re doing has been so secret and confidential,” she said.

She’s cautiously optimistic the project can be built, but she said she doubts Glenfarne can meet its rapid timeline.

“I’m certainly not out of touch with reality,” she said.

Alaska lawmakers have said they’re uncertain what steps they may be asked to take to provide the full project with long-term fiscal stability, if any.

They say they’re awaiting the governor’s property tax proposal.

Giessel told reporters on Tuesday: “Glenfarne has told us, ‘Don’t worry, this is a private-sector project. We will bear all of the cost. We will get investors. We will take all of the overruns and delays. We’ll take all that responsibility.’”

Fitzpatrick, with Glenfarne, said the company “continues to make progress toward a final investment decision for Alaska LNG.”

That includes “engaging with state and local policymakers on property tax reforms that will enable Alaska LNG to proceed and successfully unlock billions of dollars in royalty, tax, and other economic benefits for Alaskans,” he said.

“State and borough officials have recognized that Alaska’s high property taxes are an impediment for a North Slope natural gas project for more than a decade, and this issue has repeatedly been raised before the legislature including in testimony from Glenfarne and the legislature’s oil and gas consultants,” he said.

Asked about the need for state permits for early construction such as the proposed roads or bridge crossings, Fitzpatrick said, “Permitting requirements are fully accounted for in our construction plan.”

Glenfarne is working on smaller LNG export projects in the Lower 48, including Magnolia LNG in Louisiana and Texas LNG.

Giessel told reporters that Glenfarne has not reached a final investment decision for those projects.

“In fact, they’ve not reached FID on any North American project yet, and that Texas project has been in the works now for a couple of years,” she said. “So I am skeptical about any of those timelines they had in that FERC document.”

Should Alaska invest?

House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, a Republican, said he’s optimistic the Alaska LNG project will be built this time after decades of unsuccessful attempts by earlier, similar projects.

“I do appreciate that all the capital risk has been on them to this point,” Kopp said of Glenfarne.

“The spend rate, whatever it is, I really don’t know,” he said. “But I know (Glenfarne has) spent a lot and the state has not.”

Kopp said the state might want to consider investing 5% in the pipeline, at a potential cost of around $600 million, from the $3 billion Constitutional Budget Reserve savings account.

“If we had an investor interest, we would have access to everything another investor could rightfully see before they made that decision,” he said.

An investment could increase revenue to the state through tariff income that would come alongside production taxes, royalties and other income, he said.

The project is important because it has the potential to support future generations of Alaskans, he said.

The idea of a state investment in the project is something he’s discussing with colleagues, he said.

Kopp said he believes the lack of information from the company to lawmakers may relate to upcoming details that could push the project forward.

Perhaps President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, set for Feb. 24, includes more federal support for the project, perhaps even a direct investment, Kopp said.

“I don’t have any insider baseball on this,” he said. ”But it would be consistent with how this administration likes do things. And the president has said Alaska is a national energy and a national strategic priority.”

“So there could be a massive commitment that pushes this into FID,” or final investment decision, he said.

Rep. Ky Holland, an independent and co-chair of the House Energy Committee, said he — along with many other Alaskans — would love to see the project built.

He said it has received state attention and funding in the past that has prevented state investment in other opportunities, including in renewable energy that could support stable utility costs, such as the Susitna-Watana Dam project or wind projects.

In that way, it’s been a “drag on the economy,” he said.

It’s hard to say if Alaska LNG will be built, he said.

“I’m still waiting to see clear ship-or-pay binding agreements for someone to buy gas,” he said. “Absent that, I appreciate the level of enthusiasm the current developers have.”

Holland said state agencies don’t appear to be staffed up with needed manpower and finances to support the project’s permitting requirements, while budgets for workforce training or contractor assistance appear inadequate. Thousands of workers will be needed to build the pipeline.

“The (state agency) budgets I’ve seen look like business as usual, which is barely keeping the wheels on the bus,” he said.