Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Megaproject Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants tell Senate committee Alaska LNG shows typical megaproject risks; recommend independent oversight
Summary
Pegasus Global presented a 2019 megaproject assessment to the Senate Resources Committee, warning that large projects commonly run over budget and schedule and recommending stage‑gate discipline and an independent project monitor for Alaska LNG feed and execution oversight.
Pegasus Global Holdings consultants briefed the Senate Resources Committee on April 7 about lessons from megaprojects and how those lessons apply to the Alaska LNG program now in a new phase of development.
Joe Miller, president and CEO of Pegasus Global, and Jeremy Clark, senior vice president, summarized the firm’s 2019 report and said megaprojects typically face elevated risk exposure, long timelines, complex stakeholder landscapes and higher vulnerability to so‑called “black swan” events.
Why it matters: The Alaska LNG effort is a multibillion‑dollar, long‑lead project. Pegasus cited industry research that most megaprojects come in over budget or late and urged the Legislature to require greater oversight — notably better‑defined stage gates, clearer risk management practices, more complete pre‑FEED engineering and an independent project monitor during FEED and execution phases.
Key takeaways from the briefing
- “Iron law”: Pegasus cited research by Bent Flyvbjerg and others showing roughly 90% of megaprojects experience cost or schedule overruns. The consultants described the tradeoff that even with overruns, many completed megaprojects still provide long‑term public benefit.
- Common risks: The presentation grouped risks into project economics, regulatory approvals, partner alignment, execution capability, weather/environment (including permafrost), and supply chain/logistics. Clark cited past Alaska examples — the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and a later strategic reconfiguration project — where early estimates and limited early engineering contributed to large cost increases.
- Stage gates and FID: Pegasus described the final investment decision (FID) as the industry “go/no‑go” point and emphasized that decision points (stage gates) at earlier feasibility and pre‑FEED phases can help avoid progressing to FID with unresolved risks. Clark recommended using stage gates tied to evolving project information and cautioned that costs to reach each stage are real.
- Contracting and risk allocation: The consultants recommended matching contracting approaches to project needs; alliance or partnership contracts can align parties and share risk, while design‑bid‑build approaches can increase adversarial claims and change orders. They advised assigning risks to the party best able to manage them while recognizing that risk transfer increases cost.
- Independent monitoring: Pegasus recommended an independent project monitor or advisory team embedded with the project for continuous oversight. Clark and Miller said such monitors can provide neutral, factual assessments and that project sponsors typically treat the monitor’s cost as a project expense.
Questions from legislators focused on comparability and mitigation
Committee members pressed Pegasus about how to size contingencies and what to expect in cost escalation. Clark referenced industry guidance (AACE International) showing wide ranges for cost estimate accuracy depending on the stage of design and said early conceptual estimates can carry +/-50% uncertainty while estimates near execution can be narrower.
Several senators asked whether past Alaska projects’ overruns should make the state skeptical or better prepared; Pegasus said prior projects provide lessons and site‑specific data that should inform more robust planning. Senators also asked how an independent monitor would be established; Pegasus said oversight can be instituted through legislative direction or by a regulatory commission and that independent monitors should have no financial stake in project outcomes.
Ending
Pegasus told the committee that as the Alaska LNG program advances into FEED and further development, legislative and regulatory oversight — including pre‑defined stage gates and independent monitoring — would reduce the risk that large‑scale cost and schedule growth occurs without timely public scrutiny. The committee did not take formal action on these recommendations at the hearing.
