Rail, shipping routes may supercede pipeline

Alternative ways of distributing natural gas may be cheaper and quicker than building a pipeline. Arctic shipping routes are opening up due to melting of sea ice. Natural gas could be liquefied and transferred to tanker ships and shipped from the North Slope to Europe, and shipped from the Port of Nome to Alaska markets, Japan and the Orient.

Also, our rail system could be extended to the North Slope, and west along the Yukon River valley to the Chukchi Sea and Nome, and east to connect with the Canadian system.

Liquefied natural gas could be efficiently transported by rail to many more markets than a pipeline could serve. This would serve the energy needs of a lot more Alaska communities than a pipeline. Our oil pipeline made sense, because the crude oil was all in one place and it needed to go to a single place, Valdez. Natural gas, on the other hand, is all over the place and it must be distributed to markets all over Alaska as well as the “Lower 48.” Also, natural gas pipelines are more dangerous from terrorism due to the explosive nature of the compressed gas. It is possible that these are some of the reasons why oil companies are holding back on committing their gas to a pipe dream, which may be neither the most profitable way nor the best way to benefit the most Alaskans.

Daniel Russell,

Willow