FAIRBANKS — The state of Alaska may need to show it can live without a North Slope natural gas pipeline instead of viewing it as an economic savior.

That was the message offered by an energy consultant at a Fairbanks luncheon sponsored by Northrim Bank on Wednesday. Speaking to a crowd of about 160 people at the Westmark Hotel, Dan Dickinson said the state will build a better case for a pipeline if it isn’t a vital part of Alaska’s economic future.

Dickinson, an Anchorage-based accountant and former state oil and gas director, said a deep reliance on natural gas revenues could scare off companies that might invest in the project. If the state can balance future budgets simply by adjusting gas tax revenues, he said, it could create an environment that drives away potential producers.

“The conventional wisdom is that we need a fiscal plan until we can get a gas pipeline, and we’ll all be in a bed of roses ... What we really need is a fiscal plan in case there is no pipeline,” he said.

The presentation was part of an “Alaska Economic Update” that offered an overview of the state’s finances. The news for Alaska includes both grim and promising signs: Although the state has an enviable $46 billion in savings, oil production has plummeted during the past two decades.

At best, the economics of a gas pipeline are cloudy. Dickinson said it’s uncertain whether that $41 billion pipeline investment can be recovered.

Using current prices, gas producers would lose a bundle — roughly $1.1 billion a year. If the price of gas were to double, they’d reap an annual profit of $5.4 billion before state taxes are factored in.

The state forecasts an annual price increase of 5 percent for natural gas, which would make a gas line hugely profitable for both Alaska and energy producers in the future. But Dickinson said it’s hard to know if those projections are realistic, since gas prices have actually been on a decline for the past decade.

Amid that uncertainty, Dickinson said energy producers are especially wary after oil prices surged in 2008. He said governments found ways to increase production tax revenues almost everywhere, regardless of previous agreements that were designed to create predictable tax expenses for oil companies.

Creating an environment where natural gas revenues aren’t critical to Alaska could be a challenge.

Oil, which has been the backbone of Alaska’s economy for the past 35 years, has been in steady decline since production peaked at about 2 million barrels in 1988.

Even though current production is down by two-thirds from that level, oil has never been more valuable to Alaska. Because of high prices, the state actually collected more in tax revenues in 2008 than at any time in its history.

That conflict has helped disguise the looming problems with declining oil production, said Northrim Bank Economist Mark Edwards.

“It doesn’t make these long-term problems as up-front in some people’s minds,” Edwards said.

Still, Edwards said Alaska has a lot to feel good about, particularly compared to other parts of the country that were hit hard by the recession.

Foreclosure and loan delinquency rates in Alaska are among the lowest in the nation, and the subprime loans that caused much of the economic collapse were mostly absent here.

Although unemployment is high in Alaska, it remains about a point below the national average at 8.4 percent. The state has added about 3,000 jobs so far this year, largely in government and health care.

Perhaps most importantly, Alaska has a nice nest egg. There is $11 billion in savings, along with an additional $35 billion in the Permanent Fund.

“We already have quite a bit of money saved, and this is going to help us through difficult times,” Edwards said.

Contact staff writer Jeff Richardson at 459-7518.