Legislature(2019 - 2020)CAPITOL 17
03/26/2019 10:15 AM House ENERGY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Presentation: It's Not Our Fault - Alaska LNG & the Global Perspective |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
March 26, 2019
10:16 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Grier Hopkins, Chair
Representative Zack Fields, Vice Chair
Representative John Lincoln
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative George Rauscher
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: IT'S NOT OUR FAULT - ALASKA LNG & THE GLOBAL
PERSPECTIVE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY PERSILY
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As former federal coordinator of Alaska
North Slope Gas Pipeline projects, presented a PowerPoint,
titled "It's not our fault there is no gas line."
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:16:10 AM
CHAIR GRIER HOPKINS called the House Special Committee on Energy
meeting to order at 10:16 a.m. Representatives Hopkins, Pruitt,
Lincoln, Rauscher, Spohnholz, Fields, and Zulkosky were present
at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION: IT'S NOT OUR FAULT - ALASKA LNG & THE GLOBAL
PERSPECTIVE
PRESENTATION: IT'S NOT OUR FAULT - ALASKA LNG & THE GLOBAL
PERSPECTIVE
10:16:30 AM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation by Larry Persily, former federal coordinator for
Alaska North Slope gas pipeline project.
10:17:13 AM
LARRY PERSILY, as former federal coordinator of Alaska North
Slope Gas Pipeline projects, explained that his position had
been to "encourage and help get an Alaska North Slope gas
pipeline built." He noted that he was one of the few people who
had closed down a federal agency and shared a story regarding
his contact with the General Services Administration (GSA) after
notification that his agency would be closed. When he asked the
GSA what to do, the reply was: "I don't know. We've never done
that before. We're not sure what to do." He stated that there
had been work done to build a North Slope gasline for many
years, reporting that since 2001 the State of Alaska had spent
more than $900 million on various iterations of the project,
including the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority and the
Alaska Gasline Inducement Act.
10:18:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for whom Mr. Persily was speaking.
MR. PERSILY explained that he was speaking for the State and
Alaskans, as a whole, and stated that this included multiple
agencies, governors, legislators, and the people of Alaska. He
reported that there had been a voter mandate to approve a state
built gasline and noted that there had been more than $300
million spent on a subsidy for the Alaska Gasline Inducement
Act. He pointed to the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline and the
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation. He stated that, as a
lot of money had been spent on these projects, it was not for
lack of spending that there was not a gasline. He emphasized
that it was necessary to understand that nothing was guaranteed
about liquified natural gas (LNG) as just because you built
something did not guarantee it would turn out as expected. He
offered an example of a 20-year contract between Toshiba and an
LNG export terminal in Texas. He shared the history of global
LNG since 1964 with cargo from Algeria, reporting that
everything had been long-term and stable, with no spot markets
or short-term trades, and it had paid off over time. Starting
20 years ago, the market really grew, especially in Qatar and
Australia, and now "everybody has wanted to get into the LNG
trade and that's kinda where we are today."
10:22:09 AM
MR. PERSILY paraphrased from slide 2, "No matter where we
turned...," which read:
Markets well supplied 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, while
higher value to North Slope gas pushing out more oil
North America looked possible in 2000s, until shale
Asia looked possible in 2010s, until every supplier in
the world saw the same LNG market opportunities
MR. PERSILY pointed out that the Alaska North Slope producers
had been using the gas to force out more oil, which was the
highest and best use of that gas during that time, and it made
Alaska and the companies a lot of money. He reported that shale
oil "ended any hopes of getting Alaska gas into North America."
He offered an example of Pennsylvania gas, which would supply an
equivalent of seven Alaska LNG projects. In January, North
Dakota flared half a billion cubic feet of gas daily, twice as
much as would be used by Southcentral Alaska, as they did not
have the pipelines to send it anywhere.
10:23:52 AM
MR. PERSILY moved on to slide 3, "Alaska: The $43 billion
question," and paraphrased the slide, which read:
Competition: Too many other less risky, lower-cost and
ready-to-go projects are lined up before Alaska
Demand: Growth is starting to slow down in China
Missing pieces: Project lacks far too many essential
parts to reach investment decision for several years
MR. PERSILY reported that there was a lot of stranded gas in the
world, and a lot of it was cheaper to get.
10:24:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT pointed to the continued building of coal
plants in China which produced a lot of pollution and asked if
these newer plants offered an opportunity to transition in five
or ten years to "stem that tide" of pollution.
MR. PERSILY replied that a China state investment corporation
had recently announced that there would not be financing for any
new coal power plants. He expressed agreement that once the
existing plants reached the "end of their life, there's more
opportunity, but what else will China do between now and then."
He reported that China had a lot of shale gas and although they
preferred to buy locally, they had not solved a way to produce
it economically.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT reflected that China made change, not
because of pressure from the rest of the world, but because of
internal pressure. He asked if the demand for change within
China would be a driving force.
10:28:01 AM
MR. PERSILY expressed agreement that pollution drove decisions
although the shift to gas was not supported by the ability to
deliver gas to the communities. He shared a concern that
economics was still part of the decision-making process and
that, as coal was really cheap, the price was an issue for gas
to compete with coal.
CHAIR HOPKINS asked to explain the difference between spot
market and long-term market.
10:29:29 AM
MR. PERSILY stated that most long-term contracts for LNG were
priced against a barrel of oil on an energy equivalent basis,
with about 6 million BTUs per barrel of oil. He pointed out
that, as this was a long-term contract, the market supply and
demand was not an issue. He explained that the spot, or short-
term, market was based on what was currently available. He said
that more customers were now going to spot market, but that
could shift in the winter months.
10:30:49 AM
MR. PERSILY paraphrased slide 4, "The competition," which read:
Qatar: World leader plans 43% expansion by 2024
Australia: Now with 10 LNG plants, totaling 25% of
global capacity after $200 billion investment boom
Russia: Decision this year on second Arctic LNG plant
Mozambique: Total output could exceed Alaska LNG
MR. PERSILY reported that Qatar was losing its title as world
leader to Australia, although Qatar was looking toward
expansion. He suggested to look at who the partners were in
these investments.
10:31:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked about the structure of the projects
in Qatar and Australia.
MR. PERSILY explained that the projects in Australia were
[indisc] and that in Qatar, although the projects were state
owned, the liquefaction projects were partnerships with private
corporations.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if these projects were still making
money.
MR. PERSILY replied that the cost of production in Qatar was
very low. He said the largest gas to liquids plant in the world
was in Qatar, and that, essentially, they were getting the gas
for free. He reported that, in Australia, even though there was
no government equity, there were tax breaks or incentives. He
said that a project was allowed to recover its full capital
expense before paying tax. He relayed that Russia had been a
bit player but that it had just opened its second Arctic LNG
plant, and were looking at further expansion.
10:34:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether Russia was building gas
pipelines similar to the proposed Alaska gas pipeline.
MR. PERSILY replied that the plants were located near the gas
field in order to allow for a short pipeline. He noted that the
proposed Alaska project was for an 870-mile pipeline, and that
"nobody comes close to that."
10:36:17 AM
MR. PERSILY directed attention to slide 5, "And the list goes
on," and paraphrased [indisc] from the slide, which read:
Papua New Guinea: Decision anticipated this year on
$13 billion project to more than double capacity
Shell-led LNG Canada project under construction;
partners from China, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea
U.S. will have six LNG export terminals by late 2019
CHAIR HOPKINS asked about resolution with First Nation tribes.
MR. PERSILY replied that there was not yet resolution with all,
but that there were benefit agreements signed with "a couple
dozen of the First Nations." He shared a dispute within one
First Nation whereby the elected council had supported the
pipeline but the hereditary chiefs had not agreed and were
maintaining a protest camp along the pipeline route. He offered
his belief that this would be resolved, noting that the length
of this proposed pipeline was 416 miles. He reported that the
British Columbia government was "scrapping a special LNG profits
tax that the previous government had put in" and was going to
exempt the project from sales tax during construction, estimated
at a $600 million savings, as well as offering performance
payments with no interest to accrue, exempting the project from
any future increase in carbon tax, providing electricity at the
lowest cost industrial rate, and offering a 3 percent credit on
corporate income tax for any gas bought for the project. He
stated that "this is a fact of life in the competitive world out
there."
10:39:48 AM
MR. PERSILY shared slide 6, "More coming from Gulf Coast," and
paraphrased the slide, which read:
ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum have decided to build
$10 billion Golden Pass LNG project in Texas
Sempra Energy has its final EIS for Port Arthur, Texas
Cheniere likely to expand Sabine Pass to serve China
Possible decisions late 2019 for two more LNG plants
CHAIR HOPKINS asked about LNG passage through the Panama Canal.
MR. PERSILY replied that since the canal expansion almost
anything other the largest LNG carriers were allowed to pass.
He pointed out that, although there was a toll for the canal
passage, cheap gas then liquified at a low price would "cover
the toll." In response to Chair Hopkins, he agreed that this
was based on U.S. prices.
10:42:38 AM
MR. PERSILY moved on and paraphrased slide 7, "U.S. Gulf/East
Coast advantages," which read:
Of the six export projects that will operating by the
end of 2019, five were unused LNG import terminals
'Brownfield' developments with storage tanks, berths
are less costly than 'greenfield' LNG export terminals
Gulf Coast access to world's most traded gas supply
10:43:15 AM
MR. PERSILY discussed slide 8, "Construction costs worldwide,"
which read:
Average capital cost for new liquefaction capacity
2008-2017: $1,501/tonne for 'greenfield' projects and
$458/tonne for expansions, 'brownfield' projects
Middle East (Qatar): Under $400/tonne 2008-2017
Alaska: $2,150/tonne ($43 billion, 20 million tonnes)
MR. PERSILY pointed out that discussion of capital cost was per
tonne of capacity, noting the difference of almost three times
the cost between "brownfield" projects and "greenfield"
projects. He pointed out that more than 800 miles of pipe and
high construction cost made the cost of LNG per tonne in Alaska
"outside of the range of others, that's something we need to
work on."
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked about the causes for the primary
cost overruns in Australia.
MR. PERSILY offered his belief that this was a result of poor
planning and rushing in by the companies as they embarked on
construction of six different projects at the same time. This
put tremendous pressure on wages, supplies, and services. He
added that there was not any cooperation for sharing pipes or
facilities, and that they had tried to do too much at one time.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that this underscored the
strategic value of slowing down and being more deliberate with a
gasline.
MR. PERSILY expressed his agreement and noted that most projects
spent years in preliminary design and planning to know the
actual costs.
10:45:36 AM
MR. PERSILY paraphrased slide 9, "Global demand projections,"
which read:
Annual demand to grow 125 million tonnes from 2020 to
2030; average of 12 independent forecasts
Final investment decisions approved or anticipated
2018-2020 for 130 million tonnes of new capacity in
Qatar, Mozambique, PNG, Russia, Canada, U.S. Gulf
Strong demand growth would require even more LNG
MR. PERSILY spoke about a presentation by the biggest lender in
Africa, Standard Bank, on the Mozambique LNG project, which
combined a dozen different independent forecasts of global LNG
demand and reflected LNG growth equal to more than six Alaska
LNG projects. He stated that no one builds an LNG project on
speculation, hoping that the market will be there as the market
can shift so quickly.
10:47:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked about the average length of time
from conception to final investment decision.
MR. PERSILY, in response, said that from field discovery to
production was often more than 25 years. He declared that these
were big risks that took a lot of time.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked how common it was for a trade-off of
production of more oil versus getting the gas to market, similar
to the situation in Alaska.
MR. PERSILY replied that there was not much trade off if there
was only a gas field.
10:49:40 AM
MR. PERSILY shared slide 10, which read:
China's gas demand is forecast to grow 11% in 2019,
down from 15% growth in 2017 as economy weakens
China pushing for increased domestic gas production
Power of Siberia gas line on track for December 2019;
could fill 15% of China's gas import demand by 2023
MR. PERSILY pointed out that, although China had a lot of shale
gas, it was not by the urban industrial centers, so the
economics of shale was still challenging in China.
10:51:01 AM
MR. PERSILY explained slide 11, "Buyers watch the price of LNG,"
which read:
Major Chinese importers lose money on LNG buys
India a big growth market, but most price sensitive
Low price builds demand, but limits new investment
Citizens support drive to clean up the air but cannot
afford too much more for cleaner gas over dirty coal
MR. PERSILY pointed out that after the nuclear plant meltdown
and the subsequent shut down of more than 50 nuclear plants in
Japan, the price of gas had spiked more than three times the
price in Alaska and ten times the price in the Lower 48. He
reported that PetroChina lost about $1.50 for every million BTU
in the last year because the government had set the sales price,
while the company had to pay market price. He stated that new
LNG projects had to decide when to come onto the market in order
to build demand.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER reflected on an early estimate to build
the gasline for about $3 billion, whereas today the estimated
cost was $40 billion. He pointed out that the price kept
increasing and asked whether it was worth building the gasline
just to "get in the game" and not for timing the market. He
asked if that had any bearing and did it "come into play
somewhere."
MR. PERSILY shared that the original estimate for the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) was under $1 billion, whereas the
final cost had been $8 billion. He mused that the early
estimate may have thought that the CO2 could have been vented
into the atmosphere, which was no longer allowed, and not have
to pay that cost. He asked, "how deep is you pocket." He
allowed that there were some projects worldwide with no long-
term sales contracts, as the project manager thought that they
could gamble and sell the contracts in the future. He stated
that it would be companies similar to Exxon, which could afford
to do this. He declared that this would be very risky for the
State of Alaska. He shared a story of gas in Equatorial Guinea.
10:58:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT directed attention to slide 11, and asked
about India, noting that although it would surpass China in
population, it struggled to develop. He asked about the future
gas market in India.
MR. PERSILY added that Egypt was also a growth market but noted
that India was more price sensitive as they did not have the
money. He compared India and China as the governments set the
price for a domestic producer to sell gas. This could cover the
price of gas from an old gas field but not from a new gas field.
If the price was lifted, it could increase domestic production,
but consumers could balk at paying. He pointed out that Alaska
was well positioned to sell gas to China, but for India it was
more economical to buy gas from Mozambique or the Middle East.
CHAIR HOPKINS asked if India had any priority to have LNG
imported versus a pipeline for gas.
MR. PERSILY stated that India did not have enough pipelines to
move the gas around the country. He said they were buying it
from Qatar and, as their long-term contracts were newer, they
offered better prices.
CHAIR HOPKINS asked whether it would make any difference for
India to have a gas pipeline from Siberia versus bringing the
LNG import facilities on-line.
MR. PERSILY offered his belief that it would not make a
difference. He estimated that the cost of developing the gas
fields in Eastern Siberia and a pipeline to China was about $50
billion.
11:02:16 AM
MR. PERSILY, slide 12, "More Uncertainties"
Japan restarting more nuclear plants; LNG imports flat
at best and likely to decrease in the years ahead
Egypt stops LNG imports; back in the export business
Russia looks to build in the Arctic, Far East and
Baltic
Will politics and trade fights weaken world economy?
MR. PERSILY reported that, as Japan was not a growth market, LNG
demand had started to drop. He noted that Egypt had been an LNG
exporter for a decade but had run into domestic production
problems and was currently importing gas, although they had re-
started production. He added that Russia was "becoming a huge
player in the market."
11:03:33 AM
MR. PERSILY spoke about slide 13, "Global LNG financing," which
read:
It's not unusual for two dozen banks to take slices of
long-term financing for a new LNG export project
Train 5 at Sabine Pass: 25 banks loaned $2.85 billion
Average bank loan on LNG projects: $256 million, $300
million, $381 million in 2014, 2015 and 2016
MR. PERSILY declared that it was unusual for one lender to
extend more than $1 billion as it was too risky. He referenced
a bank study which showed that 15 LNG export projects financed
between 2005 - 2016 had an average debt load of 65 percent, with
owner equity of 35 percent. He pointed out that lenders "like
to see that you have some of your own cash in there."
MR. PERSILY discussed slide 14, "China's growing finance role,"
which read:
China's $6 billion 2016 bank financing for Yamal LNG
in the Russian Arctic was the largest project loan
ever
Plus $6 billion from Export-Import Bank of China
U.S. sanctions pushed Yamal to look toward China
In 2015, Chinese banks loaned just $750 million
11:06:05 AM
MR. PERSILY paraphrased slide 15, "State overly focused on
China," which read:
China playing the world market for the best deals
hey come, they do their due diligence, they kick the
tires." Louisiana LNG developer on Chinese buyers
"I think China will continue to grow, but China has a
lot of choices in terms of energy." JERA chairman
MR. PERSILY reported that the tremendous growth in China would
not continue at that accelerated rate.
11:07:06 AM
MR. PERSILY discussed slide 16, "Alaska LNG risks are
substantial," which read:
Producers willing to sell gas at inlet to the gas
plan, but what about the sales, market and price
risks?
Who takes those risks? And the construction risks?
And what about the risk and price for new supplies
after Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson start decline
before end of the long-term loan or supply contract
MR. PERSILY pointed out that these projects would start to
decline before a 30-year contract could be supplied. He asked
who would take that risk for looking for new gas, what would be
the price of the new gas, and what if the price of the new gas
cost more than the original deal would pay. He offered his
support of the approach by AGDC (Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation) to finish its work on the environmental impact
statement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
He pointed out that the oil companies had also put a lot of work
into that statement. He noted that the FERC authorization was
generally good for five years and could be renewed if the
information was brought up to date. He added that one test for
that authorization would be a list of conditions and mitigating
factors for the project, as these were the things necessary to
make the project work.
11:09:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER pointed to the risks for new supplies
mentioned on slide 16 and asked if there was "anything in the
wind."
MR. PERSILY stated that the expectation was that there was a
"lot of gas up there, but no one's been exploring for it." He
expressed his concern for fixed price contracts for the time
frame of a project involving gas that had not yet been found and
had not yet been costed for production. He reported that if
there were a pipeline to get North Slope gas to market, the
companies could book those known reserves on their balance
sheets. He added that the pipeline had not yet passed an
economic test.
11:11:32 AM
MR. PERSILY shared slide 17, "Alaskans cannot will it to
success," which read:
No one outside Alaska cares that we want the project
The Alaska LNG project will not solve our political
fights over Permanent Fund dividend, budget or taxes
Payments in lieu of municipal taxes far from settled
Mega-projects avoid risk and Alaska excels at risk
CHAIR HOPKINS asked which group was working on this.
MR. PERSILY explained that it was a municipal advisory group
appointed by the governor to work on the Alaska LNG project, and
it included the North Slope Borough, the Fairbanks-North Star
Borough, the Denali Borough, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and
the Municipality of Anchorage. He reported that a 20-mil
property tax for the life of the project would add about 10
percent to the final sale price, and, in the current market,
that was not affordable. He suggested to negotiate a shared
certainty for each group so that a price could be quoted to a
buyer. He offered an example of revenue based on pipeline
mileage in each borough.
11:15:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked how to ensure certainty as it could
not be ensured through statute because of potential changes.
MR. PERSILY offered his belief that constitutional amendments
were not recommended. He pointed out that contract law with a
damages clause would work.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked if that was the reason for the
importance of state involvement as a signatory to the contract.
He noted that the state would then be accountable and
responsible for some of the damages.
MR. PERSILY replied that this was one of the supporting
arguments for the original Alaska Gasline Project with the state
as a 25 percent equity partner. He pointed out that the state
and the producers were then aligned for the lowest production
cost, the highest price, and the most stability.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked if the contract could be written
with the pipeline owner instead of the end user. He asked how
the state could have the greatest opportunity to ensure it would
have buy-in.
MR. PERSILY replied that this would be subject to negotiation,
as the contract would force the state to behave responsibly. He
offered his belief that Alaska was viewed as politically
"squirrelly." He shared that the IRS had offered its opinion
that the percentage of ownership by the state would be exempt
from federal corporate income taxes, even as the oil companies
would have to pay income tax. He stated that he was "a little
suspect on how the state represented the ownership structure."
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT opined that this had been a key discussion
point during the previous administration and asked if this
discussion with the IRS had indicated that the State of Alaska
would only have a certain share of ownership.
MR. PERSILY, in response, offered his belief that the letter was
sent while the state was still a minority partner, and that 100
percent ownership would have changed the IRS determination. He
questioned the amount of gas that would have stayed in the state
and asked whether this would have been gas for Alaskans or a
profit-making venture.
11:22:06 AM
MR. PERSILY paraphrased slide 18 "Alaska's options are not very
good," which read:
Alaska Stand-Alone Pipeline less economic than LNG
Building LNG plant on the North Slope would not save
all that much money, air quality permits would be a
challenge, it's miles out to deep water for LNG
berths, and no guarantee of year-round ice-free
operations
Best option: Finish the EIS and work with producers
MR. PERSILY expressed his agreement that the Alaska Stand-Alone
Pipeline would require billions of dollars of state subsidies to
primarily serve Fairbanks. He discussed options to a pipeline,
and pointed out that it would be more expensive to build the
project a factory on the North Slope than anywhere else, as
there would still be the need for a gas treatment plant to
remove the CO2, increased construction costs, and need for a
man-made island to get the LNG out to deep water.
11:24:08 AM
MR. PERSILY discussed slide 19, "Alaska's finances don't help,"
which read:
Government role in LNG mega-project would be first in
the world outside of national oil companies
Where would Alaska come up with its equity dollars?
Will oil and gas taxes change during the mortgage?
Would you loan billions of dollars on Alaska project?
MR. PERSILY declared that it was be necessary for the state to
resolve its own financial issues before it could become a
partner in any project of this size.
11:24:55 AM
CHAIR HOPKINS directed attention to the world market and asked
about the "wild cards in the international market" that might
impact the potential for an LNG line.
MR. PERSILY stated his belief that China would be a wild card,
noting that its economy was showing some signs of weakening, and
that India should also be watched. He looked at the potential
impact of a Russian pipeline and its government intervention as
"Putin sees energy as a means of control and political gains."
He questioned how much China and India would grow and where
would they get cheaper gas. He added Mozambique as a wild card,
noting its three gas projects could offer three times the gas
capacity of Alaska with proximity to South Asia, China, and
India. He reported that natural gas was also discussed as a
"bridge fuel" for renewables.
11:27:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if Mr. Persily was against LNG for
Alaska or just against a pipeline. He asked if LNG could "come
down the side of Alaska instead of coming down the middle of
Alaska."
MR. PERSILY, in response to Representative Rauscher, offered his
belief that building a liquefaction plant on the North Slope
that would require a huge fleet of ice breakers was not
economically and environmentally a good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referenced the possibility of short
pipelines off the coast to "work around the major costs of the
entire pipeline that runs down the middle of the state."
MR. PERSILY pointed out that this would still be a very
expensive pipeline and opined that it would be even more
expensive to build a plant on the west coast than in
Southcentral which had year-round access. He pointed out that
the gas was still being used to produce more oil and was not
being wasted.
11:29:39 AM
CHAIR HOPKINS asked about the Stranded Gas Development Act.
MR. PERSILY offered his belief that this had expired. He
explained that this act gave the state the ability, if the gas
was declared stranded, to negotiate different fiscal terms. He
pointed out that former Governor Murkowski had brought this
contract to the legislature for consent, but the legislature
never voted on it. He stated that "there were problems with
that contract."
11:31:06 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 11:31 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2019-03-26 - Persily LNG Presentation.pdf |
HENE 3/26/2019 10:15:00 AM |