Legislature(2025 - 2026)ANCH LIO DENALI Rm
11/19/2025 01:30 PM House LEGISLATIVE BUDGET & AUDIT
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 |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Approval of Agenda | |
| Alaska Lng Project | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
November 19, 2025
Anchorage, Alaska
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson, Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Bill Wielechowski (via teleconference)
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Bryce Edgmon (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Zack Fields, Vice Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Representative Neal Foster
Senator Scott Kawasaki (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
ALASKA LNG PROJECT
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
NICK FULFORD, Senior Director
Gas/LNG and Energy Transition
GaffneyCline
London, England
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered the Alaska LNG Project
presentation.
FRED WELTGE, Senior Advisor
Economics & Value Assurance, GaffneyCline
London, England
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered the Alaska LNG Project
presentation.
ANDREW DUNCAN, Director of Facilities & Costing Engineering
GaffneyCline
Singapore
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered the Alaska LNG Project
presentation.
FRANK RICHARDS, President
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered the Alaska LNG Project
presentation.
MATT KISSINGER, Venture Development Manager
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered the Alaska LNG Project
presentation.
ADAM PRESTIDGE, President
Glenfarne Alaska;
Co-President, 8 Star Alaska, LLC
Houston, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered the Alaska LNG Project
presentation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:34:28 PM
CHAIR ELVI GRAY-JACKSON called the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. Representatives
Josephson, Kopp, Tilton, and Edgmon (alternate) and Senators
Stedman, Wielechowski (via teleconference), Giessel, and Gray-
Jackson were present at the call to order. Also present were
Representatives Holland, Coulombe, and Mears and Senator Kiehl.
[Due to technical difficulties, portions of the audio are
indiscernible throughout.]
^APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1:35:33 PM
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON announced that the first order of business
would be the approval of the agenda.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved that the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee approve the agenda. There being no objection,
the agenda was approved.
^ALASKA LNG PROJECT
ALASKA LNG PROJECT
1:35:53 PM
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON announced that the next order of business
would be the Alaska LNG Project presentation.
1:43:42 PM
NICK FULFORD, Senior Director, Gas/LNG and Energy Transition,
GaffneyCline, stated that much of today's material relates to
how other projects have created enabling legislation for
liquefied natural gas (LNG). He further noted that the costs
and prices referenced in the presentation are merely examples to
help offer insight into the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC) and Glenfarne's development work. He
explained that some of the projects and enabling legislation
involve two layers of government: state/provincial, and federal.
He reminded the committee that any initiatives taken by the
federal government, particularly related to funding or taxation,
could materially affect how the state broaches the same topic.
He referred to the PowerPoint presentation, titled "Key Issues:
Legislative and Policy Actions for Alaska LNG" [hard copy
included in the committee packet], beginning with the agenda on
slide 2, which outlined the following topics: scene setting,
state participation in project success, Canadian Pacific Coast
projects, phase 1 gas pipeline considerations, and market
backdrop for enabling legislation.
1:47:44 PM
MR. FULFORD turned to slide 4, "Scale and Impact," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
•20 Million Tonnes Per Annum (MTPA)
-1 billion therms per annum
-Typical delivered price in Asia $11/MMBtu
-$11 bn per annum
•LNG Revenue relative to GDP
-Alaska ~20%
-Compared to Texas <0.5%
-LNG Canada boost of 3% for BC
o Estimated Provincial revenues of $78 Bn by 2064
o Supporting 71,000 jobs
•35 trilling cubic feet (Tcf) of proven gas*
•Potential delivered LNG revenue of over $400 Bn
•Significant potential upside of further 200 Tcf of
gas
-Equivalent to over $2Trillion
•Capital deployment for AK LNG is almost exclusively
in midstream
•Gas cost and shipping may equate to under 20% of cost
of gas sold
-In Texas this figure is nearer to 60%
MR. FULFORD emphasized that the project would be
transformational and should it be successful, would affect every
facet of life in Alaska. He characterized the Alaska LNG
project as an infrastructure project that happens to be carrying
gas, likening it to an airport, highway, or bridge. He said it
would be a huge deployment of capital paid for by decades of
steady revenue.
1:52:20 PM
MR. FULFORD continued to slide 5, "Exposure to Capital Costs,"
which calculated the economic (indisc.) available for
processing, pipeline, and liquification by subtracting the cost
of gas ($1.00) and the cost of shipping ($0.75) from the
delivered gas price ($11.05), resulting in a midstream process
cost of $9.30 for Alaska that is 84 percent of the landed value.
Slide 5 read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
•Compared to US Gulf Coast projects, the majority of
the cost of delivered LNG from Alaska will relate to
capital investment.
•Thus, the value of the delivered gas is underpinned
predominantly from the infrastructure costs, not the
upstream gas production.
•Robust cost estimation for FEED and exemplary project
management of the EPC contract are thus essential.
MR. FULFORD concluded that assessing and controlling capital
deployment on the midstream intertie issue is key. He added
that for Alaska LNG, midstream risk is high, but upstream risk
is low, which is not typical of all LNG projects.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked how Mr. Fulford arrived at $1.00 for the
cost of gas in Alaska.
1:55:01 PM
MR. FULFORD said the $1.00 figure is based on a range of
historical presentations. He acknowledged that this is one of
the significant pieces of the puzzle that needs to be factored
in as a higher cost of gas would change the proportion of
infrastructure.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked whether the delivered gas price is a rough
target (indisc.) that everything must fit into.
MR. FULFORD said like the Canadian projects, the main benefits
of Alaska LNG is low-cost gas and shipping, leaving much more
room in the economic value chain to invest in large sums
required for the pipeline processing. To the extent that the
low-cost gas equation doesn't come to fruition, more pressure
would be put on the rest of the project to deliver.
1:57:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed concern about substantial
diminishment in value to the state treasury. He referenced a
PowerPoint on Senate Bill 138 by former Commissioner Angella
Rodell from March 10, 2014, that on slide 12, indicated that the
numbers wouldn't change much under any scenario and the net cash
flow to the state would be $3.2 billion per year. Perhaps the
number would be closer to an excess of $2 billion when
accounting for property taxes, he noted. He highlighted the
state's stark operating budget and the need for deferred
maintenance around the state, adding that that the needs of the
people cannot be met at present. He asked where the other $2
billion went.
MR. FULFORD questioned, rhetorically, how to address the project
in a way that enables it to succeed while plugging some of the
gaps in the state budget. He said getting started and making it
to Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) is one of the most
difficult aspects of an LNG project, because the economics are
always challenging due to razor thin margins. However, the
projects often perform better than designed after a few years
once they are initiated. He spoke to the generational impact on
standards of living that these projects offer. Were the state
to take an equity stake in the project, sometimes the equity can
be carried and paid for by future revenues. Nonetheless, he
urged the legislature to weigh the long-term generational
impacts on schools and hospitals, for example, against the needs
to get the project going.
2:03:23 PM
MR. FULFORD resumed the presentation with a discussion of the
state's participation in project success. He referred to slide
7, "Nature of Fiscal/ Legislative Package," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
•Fiscal and legislative package has three purposes
?Risk sharing between government and project sponsor
?Clarify tax burden/level of government take
?Detail regulatory requirements/allowances and state
involvement
•Legislation / fiscal framework needs to be stable,
transparent and potentially flexible to project
performance and market conditions
?Allowances and/or progressive fiscal elements are
commonly incorporated
•State participation creates opportunities for risk
sharing and value creation.
Project specific enabling legislation is common for
LNG projects
MR. FULFORD added that of the $11 million, if the state were to
take a 25 percent interest in the project, $2.4-$3 million would
come back to the state. He added that deciding about state
participation would be key because the life of the project could
be between 30 to 50 years. A common feature of LNG projects is
the equation of how to design a progressive fiscal package that
could address changes in LNG price, changes in demand, and other
variable factors.
2:06:28 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL sought to confirm that as Mr. Fulford is
contracted by the legislature as a consultant, they could expect
to receive specific advice from his company, GaffneyCline. She
asked whether that is part of the contract.
MR. FULFORD answered yes, that could certainly be part of the
contract.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked whether the legislature could expect to
receive specific financial recommendations from Mr. Weltge, the
fiscal specialist.
2:07:30 PM
FRED WELTGE, Senior Advisor, Economics & Value Assurance,
GaffneyCline, responded GaffneyCline would be in a position to
support the legislature and any considerations or proposals they
might field on changes to fiscal packages. Before then, they
could also support in the valuation or various value impacts of
potential changes to fiscal burdens, timelines, regulatory
issues, or changes in project nature. He added that
GaffneyCline often advises governments on the impact of changes
to the fiscal burden along with sensitivities to the assumptions
underpinning the development of the facility, as well as
potential production that would be marketed through the LNG
facility. He said wide-ranging support could be provided, but
the extent to which that has been conducted today is limited.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked the chair to request that kind of detailed
recommendations from the consultants. She presumed that
GaffneyCline is familiar with Alaska's tax structure, adding
that she would be interested in further specifics.
2:09:32 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN sought clarification on whether the 25 percent
equity ownership would include or exclude Alaska's royalties.
MR. FULFORD said under prior legislation [Senate Bill 138], it
was an integrated project from the upstream to the delivery of
the LNG and one of the features was that the state could elect
to take taxes, gas, and royalties in kind. That approximate 25
percent stake would have continued through the entire value
chain. He said there are many aspects of the project to be
defined. Currently, one of the concepts being developed is to
purchase the gas into the processing plant on the North Slope
and move it from there, in which case the 25 percent equity
stake would start where the gas enters the plant, so the state
would still have its production tax and royalty revenues from
the gas.
2:11:17 PM
[Due to technical difficulties, sound was lost briefly.]
MR. FULFORD, in response to a question from Senator Stedman,
said if an arm's length exists between the gas producers and the
project, there would be no reason to change the gas tax regime,
which is what was done with LNG Canada.
2:12:53 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN commented on the state's fiscal position and
asked (indisc.).
MR. FULFORD clarified that all the fiscal and enabling
legislation is a result of a balanced dialogue between the host
nation and the project where some tax rebates might be offered
in the short-term, but there's tangible value in the long-term.
He acknowledged that the capital costs of the project and its
broader economics are unknown, so it would be inappropriate for
the state to change fiscal arrangements until that becomes
better defined.
2:15:08 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said he understood the multigenerational impact
to the state, but he expressed concern about the project's cash
flow. He pointed out that if it's successful it would be very
beneficial, but if its unsuccessful it could be detrimental for
generations. He said GaffneyCline needs to integrate it with
the state's fiscal regime (indisc.)
MR. FULFORD responded that an upcoming slide addresses framework
development, which includes the creation of an open book
economic model (OBEM). These are the types of tangible details
that would be available to determine how the state wants to
enter into the bargain with the developer to ensure fair and
equitable value.
SENATOR STEDMAN said the Trump administration is a wild card and
seems to have all the leverage in this game.
MR. FULFORD recalled one of his disclaimers at the beginning of
his presentation, regarding the impact of the federal
government's decisions and its transformational effect on the
project's economics and the extent to which the burden is
shifted from the state to a combination of state and federal
assessments. He commented on the U.S. Department of Energy's
(USDOE's) loan office and the cancellation of certain energy
projects. He speculated that as that money is channeled into
energy infrastructure and energy dominance, there seems to be an
open door there for the Alaska project to benefit. He
reiterated that LNG Canada is a textbook example of the
provincial government's goals aligning with federal government
goals surrounding gas exports to the Pacific, resulting in a
combined package of measures that led almost directly to the
Final Investment Decision (FID).
SENATOR STEDMAN asked how they dealt with cost overruns.
MR. FULFORD said the majority of the cost overrun related to the
pipeline, so at the project outset, they entered into detailed
agreements concerning how the pipeline would be funded. He
added that a tariff would have been agreed upon. Whether
TransCanada is able to go back and reset the tariff in a
different way, is dependent on the commercial tariff, which is
inaccessible to GaffneyCline.
SENATOR STEDMAN suggested looking at that budget to help
understand the cost overruns.
2:20:37 PM
MR. FULFORD emphasized that ultimately, the value is in the
creation of a viable project, and getting a project to FID
that's economically profitable remains the prime driver of the
state and project sponsors. Beyond that, he outlined the
primary goals of the state and project developers on slide 8,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
State Objectives
•Realize appropriate level of value from hydrocarbon
resources
?Complex consideration that requires private capital
and marketing
•Utilize state benefits based on government priorities
•Ensure energy security and optimal management of
resources
•Enable economic activity and job growth
•Oversee that environment and safety standards are
maintained
Developer Objectives
•Achieve appropriate levels of shareholder returns
•Grow in a globally competitive LNG supply
•Serve customers and strengthen relationship
•Generate reliable business case and forecasts
-Require fiscal understanding and stability over life
of projects
Existing examples of LNG enabling legislation can be
used to guide approach for AK LNG
2:23:14 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL pointed out that providing affordable gas to
Alaskans is a key piece that rivals the economics of fiscal
return to the state.
MR. FULFORD said the point made by Senator Giessel is one aspect
that makes this project unique. He turned to slide 9, "Fiscal
Stability," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
•Fiscal Stabilization is a contractual or legal
provision that guarantees investors protection against
adverse legislative changes to the originally
envisioned economic terms during the life of a project
•Higher commitment of capital and longer project time
horizons result in greater emphasis on fiscal
stability
Fixed Terms "Tax Freeze"
The tax system applicable at the time of signing
remains unchanged for the project life specified in
law or contract.
•Qatargas I & II
•Papua New Guinea (PNG)
•Sakhalin LNG
•LNG Canada
Economic Equilibrium Stabilization
If tax changes are introduced, the government makes
other beneficial adjustments or otherwise compensates
investor to retain the original economic impact.
•Mozambique
•P'Nyang LNG (PNG)
•Grande Tortue Ahmeyim (GTA)
2:24:25 PM
MR. FULFORD likened the Alaska LNG project to committing four or
five Willow projects at the same time, so the order of magnitude
of capital outlay is huge by Alaska and global standards. As a
result, fiscal stability always features high on the dialogue.
2:26:47 PM
[Due to technical difficulties, sound was lost briefly.]
MR. FULFORD, in response to Senator Stedman, recalled from his
own involvement with the Department of Revenue (DOR) after
Senate Bill 138, that the constitutional features of fiscal
stability concerns from producers were discussed at some length.
He said it's a feature that often applies with host nations, and
one that's been litigated as well, as not all fiscal agreements
have gone as planned.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON echoed Senator Stedman's concerns. He
referenced the Natural Gas Act of 1938 ("Standard Gas Act") and
the effort in the 2000s, as well as the request for that sort of
guaranteed commitment that ultimately, the state could not give.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP shared his understanding that the buyers
want 20 to 30 years of stability, and that among all LNG
producing jurisdictions, Alaska's fiscal framework may be out of
alignment. Given those factors, he said the state may need to
consider a reality where the project doesn't move forward. He
emphasized that a 42-inch pipeline isn't built for in-state
needs alone, adding that it must go to export and attract
customers. He asked whether that is correct.
MR. FULFORD acknowledged Representative Kopp's analysis. He
pointed out that in many jurisdictions, enabling legislation is
built from the ground up. One way the state can approach this
is with "a clean sheet of paper," he said, and by evaluating all
of these different features, including affordable energy, and
design a framework that's fit for purpose and creates an
equitable split between developers and the state.
2:31:55 PM
[Due to technical difficulties, sound was lost briefly.]
MR. FULFORD, in response to Senator Stedman, said almost
everything would have to be set prior to FID.
SENATOR STEDMAN stated, "when we get into oil tax that's a two-
year deal." He shared his understanding that Mr. Fulford had
stated that Alaska's system might be out of balance. He added
that FID won't be in the future for quite a while.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether abating something like
property tax alone could be enough to move the needle.
MR. FULFORD suggested that one of the first decisions the
legislature might want to take is a strategy of new project-
driven enabling legislation or amending existing fiscal terms.
All of which involve the project developers.
SENATOR GIESSEL replied that would take a lot of legislative
time. She stated that the first sentence on slide 9 makes her
uncomfortable, and questioned how Alaska would constitutionally
or rationally "enact contractual or legal provisions that
guarantee investors protection against adverse legislative
changes to the originally envisioned economic terms during the
life of a project."
MR. FULFORD explained that not all forms of fiscal stability are
contractual. Ultimately, this language speaks to creating an
investment environment where developers and lenders have
sufficient faith in the lack of variability in setting taxes
such that the cost of debt is low and the hurtle rate is low.
With LNG Canada, he said, there was no formal fiscal stability
signed for that project. It was done through assurances from
federal and provisional government about not changing taxes in a
way that would adversely affect the project.
2:36:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether federal involvement in this
project is enough to offset getting fiscal stability from
Alaska.
MR. FULFORD stated, "If we were having this discussion in the
late 1960s for the first Nikiski project, that project was
launched through a treaty between the U.S. and Japan, as many
projects were in those days." Over the years, he said LNG
projects have become much more commercially driven and
government involvement has lessened. Now, there's an argument
that government-to-government dialogue is an extremely important
part, and it's conceivable that a degree of support - policy or
otherwise - from the federal government could ameliorate some of
the fiscal questions.
2:39:47 PM
MR. FULFORD noted the quotes about fiscal stability from
investors and host nations on slides 10 and 11, and continued to
slide 12, which listed examples of disputes over fiscal
stability wherein taxes were changed, and the compact was
altered. In an international contract, these usually go to an
international court of arbitration. In general, he stated that
arbitrators have sided with project investors in the sense that
if there was an expectation of fiscal stability when they
invested their capital, that expectation should be maintained.
2:41:04 PM
MR. FULFORD turned to slide 13, "Property Tax Implication,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
•Due to the capital and time required to develop the
pipeline and facilities, taxes and duties that are
implemented at early stages of the project can have a
disproportionately adverse effect on the economic
value and returns
?It is common for other jurisdictions to offer holidays
or exemptions on early taxes/duties/levies like import
taxes, VAT, etc.
•Thus, Alaska's Property Tax is one of the biggest
potential burdens on project economics
•At $1/MMBtu it could represent a similar cost to the
gas supply into the processing plant
•If the project were to start in phases, impact likely
to be higher
•Considerable work carried out to assess a Payment in
Lieu of Tax in the 2015-2017 timeframe
Feature Impact
Assumed Capital $50 Bn
Initial tax burden* $1 Bn
Cost Impact $1/MMBtu
% Increase to Delivered 9%
Cost of LNG
*Based on a 2% tax on capital value in year 1
SENATOR STEDMAN said the property tax would affect his borough
as much as Fairbanks, for example.
[Due to technical difficulties, sound was lost briefly.]
MR. FULFORD said one question is what level of tax should be
levied and another is how it should be distributed. These are
questions that he declined to comment on but acknowledged that
the legislature would want to address them going forward.
2:44:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referring to slide 13, asked why
Alaska's property tax is one of the biggest potential burdens on
project economics given the "tax holiday" that's built into AS
43.56.020.
MR. FULFORD shared his understanding that the holiday applies up
to first gas, so while it would have a beneficial effect, the
tax would immediately represent a large cost as soon as first
gas starts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he can't fathom that the
legislature would have the kind of time to entertain these
issues before FID, and if that's a requirement, it couldn't be
done even if they wanted to.
MR. FULFORD stated that these massive infrastructure projects
encounter all sorts of seemingly unsurmountable problems. He
confirmed that it would require significant dialogue between
stakeholders about ways that these fiscal items could be left
open to some degree while FID is pursued.
2:47:27 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL pointed out that the legislature has not heard
from Glenfarne or AGDC about needing to make fiscal changes to
Alaska's tax structure. She asked why this hasn't been
communicated.
MR. FULFORD said he's sure these things are on their minds and
deferred to Glenfarne and AGDC.
SENATOR GIESSEL clarified that Glenfarne and AGDC had stated in
previous legislative hearings that no legislative changes would
be needed.
2:49:37 PM
MR. FULFORD resumed the presentation on slide 14, "Federal Loan
Guarantee," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
•Federal loan guarantees will reduce the cost of debt
for the LNG project
•Material benefit given size of capital outlay
•Exact terms and debt arrangements will determine
impact
•Likely to be in the $0.3-0.4/MMBtu range
•Amounts to 3 4% on cost of delivered gas **
Feature Metric Annual Levelized
Cost Cost*
Assumed Debt $30 Bn
Assumed Interest
rate without
credit support 6.5% $1.95 Bn $2.7Bn
Assumed Interest
rate with
credit support 5% $1.5 Bn $2.4Bn
Annual saving $450 m $300m
Saving in Cost of
Delivered Gas $0.45/MMBtu $0.3/MMBtu
*Including amortization and repayment over 20 years
** based on December 2025 JKM futures price. Effect of
loan guarantee assumed to be a reduction of 1.5% in
cost of debt, based on prior AGDC/Woodmac
presentations.
MR. FULFORD emphasized that aside from property tax, federal
loan guarantee is the next biggest item that could affect the
economics of the project.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked for a definition of federal loan
guarantee.
MR. FULFORD said he did not have the details at this time.
2:51:33 PM
MR. FULFORD continued to slide 15, "Relationship of Oil and Gas
Production," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
•Mature fields commonly transition from liquids-
dominated production to gas focused production at
later stages of asset life (e.g. "gas cap blowdown").
Commercial framework and physical infrastructure is
needed to capture this opportunity
•Reservoir management factors will affect the
relationship between oil and gas production
•Reservoir management for optimum value will be key as
Prudhoe Bay moves towards higher gas production
•Gas development is typically less profitable compared
to liquids which may merit reconsidering upstream tax
and royalty arrangements to enable investment,
benefiting all parties
•Assessing these factors is likely to be a complex and
detailed process involving a range of modelling, with
input from oil/gas producers, AOGCC and other bodies
2:53:05 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked whether ExxonMobil Corporation,
ConnocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., and Hilcorp factor this gas into
the cost and oil profit.
MR. FULFORD said yes, it will be part of the commercial
dialogue, as its not only how it affects oil production, but
also needing to install new infrastructure, such as compression
or pipeline linkages. So, there will be some degree of capital
expenditures ("CapX") as well that would need to be paid for.
2:53:50 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said in the future, the capital costs north of
Station 1 need to be revisited to better understand it, because
it flows against the oil tax, which is already below floor in
many places.
MR. FULFORD resumed the presentation on slide 16, "Carbon
Capture," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
•Latter phases of LNG will require growing processing
capability to remove CO2
•HB50 passed in 2023 provides a framework for Carbon
Capture, Use and Sequestration (CCUS)
•Combination of federal tax credits (45Q) and customer
demand for lower carbon LNG provides an economic
driver.
•Credits for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) increased in
Federal HR 1.
•Gulf Coast projects have to remove CO2 from pipeline
gas, however, AK LNG CO2 content is much higher. Many
are investing in CCS due to customer demand.
•Potential additional benefit from reducing carbon
intensity of North Slope oil production.
•For a 2 million tonne carbon capture plant, at
$85/tonne of tax credit, the benefit to AK LNG could
be 17c/MMBtu of delivered LNG*.
*2 million tonnes of CO2 at $85/tonne = $170m per
annum, divided into 1 billion therms of LNG = $0.17
per MMNtu
2:56:01 PM
MR. FULFORD recommended that members glance through the projects
listed on slides 17 and 18, which give examples of fiscal
incentives and stability among LNG projects in the US and
globally.
2:57:09 PM
ANDREW DUNCAN, Director of Facilities & Costing Engineering,
GaffneyCline, continued the presentation with a summary of key
aspects that would affect the project economics of Phase 1. He
proceeded to slide 20, "FID Pre-requisites," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
To take FID, key aspects of the AKLNG project must be
considered:
•Phase 1 will comprise the pipeline transporting gas
to the state domestic market
•Subsurface (gas availability) risk is low
•Facilities capital costs are high and a dominant part
(84%) of the overall cost of supply
The FID decision package must provide coverage of all
project work streams to demonstrate readiness to
proceed.
SENATOR STEDMAN stated that GaffneyCline needs to address how
much of Alaska's current market would be absorbed by the
pipeline. He posed a scenario in which Phase 1 was completed
and not Phase 2 and inquired as to the percentage of capacity
that Anchorage would use in the Railbelt.
MR. FULFORD answered 10 percent.
SENATOR STEDMAN reiterated that the model needs to be seen,
especially if the state is being asked to give up anything.
3:00:44 PM
MR. DUNCAN turned to slide 21, "Project Management Framework
Pre-FID," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Large projects are typically managed within a "Stage-
Gate" process where project phases are controlled at
"Decision Gates" (DG). FID is normally taken at DG4.
The DG support package will address:
•Project technical scope (project specification, key
design documents)
•Cost and schedule- base, risk analysis,
contingencies, and allowances
•Project execution plan- staffing, contracting,
procurement, logistics, etc
•Legal, permits, and regulatory framework
•Commercial framework, economics, and business case
•Financing- phasing, coverage, risk management,
assurance, etc.
•Stakeholder management
3:04:38 PM
MR. DUNCAN continued to slide 22, "Factors Affecting Pre-FID
Schedule," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The time required for the "Select" and "Develop" (or
Define) phases can vary widely, depending on:
• Project economic attractiveness- highly profitable
projects can take FID quickly, marginal projects often
require better definition and may have to recycle back
to through concept selection
• Project non-technical aspects (regulatory,
stakeholder, financing) are affected by external
influences
• Project scale, complexity, and innovation
Upstream mega-project Pre-FID phase can vary from less
than 4 years to over 50 years
3:07:13 PM
MR. FULFORD proceeded to slide 23, "Legislative Action likely
needed Prior to FID," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• Before FID is taken, legislative action may be
required in a number of key areas including:
? Reconsideration and clarification of LNG specific
Property Tax statutes, other potential duties/levies,
corporate income taxes and accounting treatment
? Any required LNG specific permitting and regulatory
definition
? Fiscal stability
? Oil and gas production tax and royalty
? Equity investment in the LNG project
• With respect to the Phase I pipeline, other pre-FID
features may include:
? Tariff setting for gas supplies to Southcentral and
the Interior
? Credit support or other mechanisms considered
appropriate
? Detailed implementations of the Alaska Advantage
principles, including tariff allocation between in-
State gas requirements and LNG feedstock flow
MR. FULFORD explained that one of the fundamental differences
between LNG Canada and the Alaska LNG project is that once the
pipeline starts to deliver gas to Southcentral, Anchorage, and
Interior Alaska, there would be a question of whether it becomes
a Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) rate case, and if so,
what provisions and resources would be needed to determine the
tariff, as well as who would pay it. In contrast, LNG Canada's
tariffs are negotiated with the pipeline contractors and put
into contractual terms. Mr. Fulford turned to slide 24 and
suggested that an open-book economic model may be a worthwhile
investigation in the coming months as the capital costs start to
become better defined.
3:11:47 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked whether Mr. Fulford is familiar with any
legislation addressing these issues that would be introduced in
the 2026 legislative session.
MR. FULFORD answered no.
3:12:56 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, President, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC), directed attention to a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "Alaska LNG Update" [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. He began on slide 2, "AGDC," which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC):
• Independent, public corporation owned by the State
of Alaska (SOA)
• Created by the Alaska State Legislature
Mission
• Maximize the benefit of Alaska's vast North Slope
natural gas resources through the development of
infrastructure necessary to move the gas to local and
international markets
MR. RICHARDS turned to slide 3, "Project Development Transition
to Glenfarne," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
• AGDC divested 75% ownership of a wholly-owned
subsidiary, 8 Star Alaska, that is advancing the
Alaska LNG Project (Alaska LNG)
• Glenfarne is majority owner and is leading and
funding all Alaska LNG development in partnership with
AGDC
• 8 Star Alaska is the corporation that holds all the
engineering, environmental data, permits,
authorizations and rights-of-way (ROW)
• By July 1, 2025, AGDC had completed transition of
project functions and assets to Glenfarne management
• AGDC and Glenfarne meet weekly for informal dialogue
on various work streams
• AGDC and Glenfarne meet formally on a regular basis
with 8 Star Alaska Board of Managers meetings
MR. RICHARDS noted that 8 Star's Board of Managers consists of
two members of Glenfarne, one member of AGDC, and an independent
board member. He reported that Janet Weiss, a former board
member of AGDC and BP Alaska's former president, was selected as
the independent board member.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked about the buyout of TransCanada's
interest in Alaska LNG and whether that was a good decision. He
questioned where the engineering and environmental data is and
whether this work is being segregated because it's a separate
investment.
3:18:19 PM
MR. RICHARDS explained that the assets from the buyout of
TransCanada became part of the collective information, data, and
engineering that AGDC was granted full ownership of when the
producers left the project. He added that when the state
purchased the rights from TransCanada, it came to the Alaska LNG
project. The state had a 25 percent equity ownership in that
project and when the producers elected to leave at the end of
2015, all those rights, responsibilities, and datasets were
granted to AGDC, which was then put into 8 Star Alaska. This
repository consists of all the engineering analysis that was
done previously on the Alaska pipeline project, the Denali
pipeline project, and the entire work product done under the
Alaska LNG project, as well as the optimization work that AGDC
did after receiving ownership rights from the producers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON shared his understanding that the state
didn't receive anything from 8 Star for the investment. Rather,
an incumbrance was removed that allowed the state to get where
it's at today. He asked whether that is accurate.
MR. RICHARDS clarified that the state received a commitment from
Glenfarne to take the project through to FID. This effort
includes all expenses, work product, contracts, engineering
analysis, and request for quotes, which means that the state is
not obligated to pay more money to advance the project. Had
Glenfarne not executed this agreement, the project may be
sitting on the shelf. He resumed the presentation on slide 4,
"AGDC's Role as Minority Owner," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
AGDC's role as 25% minority owner:
• Represent State of Alaska's interest in Alaska LNG
• Not obligated to provide future funding to
maintain ownership and receive developer
economics return
• AGDC has the option on behalf of the state, but
not the obligation, to invest in up to 25% in the
Alaska LNG subprojects (Gas Treatment Plant,
Pipeline, LNG Facility) alongside other equity
investors
• Focus areas:
• Governance
• Technical and commercial support
• Optional equity investment opportunities
• Opportunities for Alaskans to invest
• Responsibilities beyond Alaska LNG
• Ensure adherence to project development
agreements and milestones
• Developer economics
MR. RICHARDS explained that AGDC's focus is working with
Glenfarne on pushing the project forward, providing expertise,
and engaging with Alaskans. He said AGDC's role is to ensure
that Glenfarne adheres to signed contracts, diligent project
development efforts, and meets the milestones laid out in those
agreements, which includes advocating for terms described as the
Alaska Advantage Principles.
3:23:15 PM
MATT KISSINGER, Venture Development Manager, AGDC, turned to
slide 5, "Ownership Benefits: Developer Economics," which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Divesting 75% has resulted in private sector
development, funding, and leadership of Alaska LNG
where AGDC holds minority ownership of a substantial
asset growing in value
• Subproject development fees are paid to the Project
Company (8 Star Alaska) and are capitalized into
subproject cost structure
• Development fees are net of actual costs and are
distributed to owners (AGDC and Glenfarne) pro rata
• AGDC shares in development value uplift as each
subproject phase reaches FID
• Precedent: Freeport LNG development fees flowed
through the project entity, equity owners shared in
the development profit proceeds
MR. KISSINGER explained that AGDC's 25 percent investment is in
8 Star Alaska LLC, underneath which there are three
subsidiaries: one for the gas treatment plant, one for the
pipeline, one for the LNG facility. As funds are raised at
Phase 1 and Phase 2 FID for those subprojects, AGDC would be
letting go of as little equity as possible from the 8 Star
Alaska ownership. With the developer economics, what is
retained in ownership at the 8 Star Alaska level in those
subsidiaries would flow through to AGDC as the 25 percent owner.
This is in addition to tax benefits, which are separate from
what Glenfarne would receive. He noted that the 25 percent
developer economics are already locked in, regardless of whether
AGDC invests in the subprojects.
3:24:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked what would prohibit AGDC from
holding on to the 25 percent.
MR. KISSINGER clarified that currently, 8 Star Alaska holds 100
percent of the three subsidiaries. As AGDC raises funds for
those subsidiaries, equity would have to be transferred. He
reiterated that AGDC's 25 percent is locked in, but the goal is
to hold on to 8 Star Alaska's equity in the subsidiaries, which
would be negotiated as the project is de-risked while going into
FID.
3:25:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON observed that the presentation seems
similar to the two prior AGDC presentations and feels
repetitive. He said he would like to hear why there's optimism
in the project, where it's at today, and why FID would be
reached shortly.
MR. KISSINGER confirmed that the repetitive slides are serving
as a reminder for the committee. He added that the "meat" of
the presentation would come from Glenfarne's presentation and
agreed to accelerate through the remaining slides.
3:26:55 PM
MR. RICHARDS summarized slide 6, "8 Star Alaska Governance,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Ensure Glenfarne, as the Alaska LNG developer, pursues
diligent development efforts including:
• Good faith and timely pursuit of the project
developments
• Phase 1 Pipeline development milestones are
being met
• Continued investment of sufficient resources to
achieve Final Investment Decision (FID)
• Phase 1 commercial development is progressing
with a focus on Alaska energy security at the
lowest possible cost to in-state users
• Active engagement with Alaska contractors,
organized labor, and with key workforce
development parties
• Maintenance of required permits and approvals for
the project
• Permits and approvals are being maintained,
AGDC is working with Glenfarne to secure final
small parcels of rights-of-way (ROW)
• Adherence to the Alaska Advantage Principles
• Other development activities, as necessary to
achieve an affirmative FID
• Minority rights as one of four members of the 8 Star
Alaska Board of Managers
MR. RICHARDS continued to slide 8, "The Alaska Advantage
Principles," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
• Establish and maintain a substantial operational
presence in Alaska
• Accept interconnection requests from Alaska
customersas per design, a primary interconnection
will serve Fairbanks
• In-State customers get the priority right for 500
MMscfd (more than double current demand)
• Capacity will be expanded to accommodate increased
demand above the original 500 MMscfd allocation
• The project may utilize differential rates only
where they both:
1. Help maximize the flow of natural gas through
the project, and
2. Achieve the lowest possible cost of gas for
Alaska utility customers
3:28:06 PM
MR. RICHARDS explained that AGDC has reserved the right to
invest up to 25 percent in individual subprojects. He shared
the following proposed timeline: Phase 1 Pipeline investment
decision in 2026; gas treatment plant in 2027; and LNG facility
in 2027.
MR. KISSINGER directed attention to slide 11, "Preemptive
Rights," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Participation Delay Right Exercised:
• Glenfarne extends AGDC's window to participate
in any issuance or sale of equity associated with
FID for Alaska LNG subprojects
AGDC Back-In Option (5%25%):
• After the closing of such third-party
investment, AGDC may elect to back-in to acquire
between 5% and 25% of the subproject equity
issued, on the same economic terms
Extended Election Period:
• AGDC receives a full 180 days after closing to
elect and arrange funding
Alaska LNG moves forward either with or without this
participation by the State
3:31:16 PM
ADAM PRESTIDGE, President, Glenfarne Alaska; Co-President, 8
Star Alaska LLC, stated that the Alaska LNG project is one of
the most important infrastructure projects in the world. Once
completed, it will be a major force in the global energy
markets, strengthen American energy dominance, and most
importantly, deliver reliable, affordable, and scalable energy
to Alaskans for decades to come. He referred to a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "Alaska LNG Update" [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. In less than 8 months, the project has
been accelerated at an incredible pace, he said, but this means
that many things are still in progress and some of the most
important project elements are currently under sensitive
commercial negotiations. He clarified that Glenfarne's initial
request to postpone this meeting was partially based out of
concern that a full update could not be provided because many of
the important elements are under confidential negotiations with
third parties. Nonetheless, the project continues to be
advanced and there's been a number of positive successes to
share. He reminded the committee why Glenfarne is uniquely
qualified to partner with Alaska on this LNG project. He
referred to slide 2, explaining that Glenfarne is a U.S. based
privately owned developer, investor, owner, and operator of
energy infrastructure assets. The company owns over 60
operating power and energy facilities across eight countries and
employs approximately 900 people. Glenfarne is employee owned
and therefore, there's no defined timelines that would require
asset sales to make a return to investors. Furthermore, as
Glenfarne is not a public company, there's no concern about how
quarterly earnings would be interpreted by the markets. He
emphasized that Glenfarne intends to be part of Alaska LNG for
the long haul. He explained that Glenfarne has an established
track record of success that sovereign governments rely upon for
their most critical energy needs. Its customers include
national governments, regional power grids, and local utilities.
He shared an example of their Chile operation that involves a
network of 25 grid stability power generation units. Because of
Glenfarne's employee ownership, finance expertise, and operating
track record, the company is able to take an aggressive
entrepreneurial approach to advancing the project at a faster
pace and lower cost than traditional large oil and gas
companies, while maintaining a firm commitment to safety
standards and operational reliability.
3:37:46 PM
MR. PRESTIDGE turned to slide 3, "Alaska LNG The World's Premier
Natural Gas Project," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
1. Fully permitted: Federal and State
2. Abundant, proven natural gas reserves
3. Unparalleled political support
4. Independently viable project phases
5. Advanced status of engineering, routed through
established infrastructure areas
MR. PRESTIDGE stated that from a technical perspective, the
project is at a ready state to be taken into FID. This means
that the Alaska LNG project should have a successful completion
by the end of 2028 with flowing gas to Alaskans shortly
thereafter. In service of the 2028 completion timeline,
Glenfarne is working towards achieving major milestone for
maintaining the overall project schedule. He reiterated that a
project of this magnitude and complexity has numerous variables,
many of which are under confidential negotiations. Further,
those variables impact the FID date, so while it's difficult to
provide an exact date, Glenfarne is getting closer and closer to
the overall completion timeline and does not see any major
impediments. He added that very soon, the contracts and
financing would be executed, as well other activities necessary
to maintain that schedule.
3:42:18 PM
MR. PRESTIDGE turned to slide 4, "Hitting the Ground Running
Eight Months of Progress," and listed these milestones as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Established Alaska Presence
? Appointed Engineering Firm Worley
? Launched Construction Contractor Selection Process
? Signed Preliminary LNG Agreements
? Signed Strategic Partners
? Engaged Gas Suppliers
? Leveraged Federal Support
? Initiated Marine and Storage Systems Procurement
? Facilitating Community Conversations
3:44:18 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL referred to slides 3 and 4 and noted that the
list of accomplishments was achieved under the current tax
structure with no guarantee of fiscal stability. She asked how
critical those elements are.
MR. PRESTIDGE answered they are critical. He said Glenfarne's
priority has been to update the cost of the project, which
Worley is completing by the end of the year. He said it would
be difficult to have a comprehensive conversation about the need
for property tax adjustment without the complete picture of
project costs. With regard to fiscal stability, he said those
who build and pay for these projects hate uncertainty more than
anything. So the risk of fiscal uncertainty would need to
reside somewhere in the chain, resulting in a cost increase for
the infrastructure. He acknowledged that property tax is an
important part of the conversation.
3:46:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON shared his understanding that FID is a
term of art and, without the full picture of the revenue stream
throughout the life cycle of the project, FID cannot be arrived
at. He asked Mr. Prestidge to refute that and asked whether
Phase 1 and Phase 2 are separate FIDs.
MR. PRESTIDGE explained that in order to complete the project by
the end of 2028, Glenfarne intends to make significant
expenditures of capital to have the pipeline delivered, real
machinery along the pipeline route, preparing the route for
greater construction, and a number of other activities. Where
the event of FID occurs is something to be determined as the
confidential negotiation processes are resolved.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked how long-term investors would be
secured if things like tax regime and stability have yet to be
determined.
MR. PRESTIDGE acknowledged that when making an investment
earlier in the project, there's a greater risk to the
investment.
3:49:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON sought further clarification and
questioned why Glenfarne is so optimistic about reaching FID.
MR. PRESTIDGE clarified that by the time full financing is put
together, all the risks and questions need to be addressed;
however, for some of the preliminary works, the expenditures and
investments can be made while other elements are pending
resolution. Frankly, these investments are riskier, as elements
of the package are still being finalized, but Glenfarne's level
of optimism would justify making those expenditures, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether this is a two or three phase
project.
MR. PRESTIDGE said in terms of FID events, he considers it a
two-phase project; however, there are three subprojects.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON sought to confirm that Glenfarne is making
progress on Phase 1 in a way that supports a successful
completion date by the end of 2028.
MR. PRESTIDGE answered absolutely. He answered that part of the
optimism comes from the parallel progress on advancing Phase 2,
the LNG export facility. He reported that negotiations for LNG
sales to global customers have been accelerated by global market
interest in this project. Consequently, even though the
pipeline is going first, the export facility is the long-term
anchor of the project that drives the pipeline.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether there would be further
engagement with the legislature beyond today's meeting.
MR. PRESTIDGE answered yes, today represents the first meeting
with the legislature, which would be an important part of the
work moving forward. He noted that AGDC is working with the
governor on a taskforce with various borough mayors to address
property tax solutions that may be needed for the project.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON concluded that the 2026 legislative
session could be dominated by policy dedicated to advancing the
LNG pipeline. He asked whether that is accurate.
MR. PRESTIDGE opined that it would be an important part of the
agenda.
3:54:50 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL presumed that Phase 1 includes the gas treatment
facility.
MR. PRESTIDGE answered no, not technically. The specifications
necessary for gas exported as LNG is a higher standard of gas
purity that is necessary for (indisc.) grade consumption for
domestic users. At that high volume, a large treatment facility
is needed to bring the North Slope down to LNG specifications;
however, the specifications satisfactory for domestic
consumption in Alaska are not at the same level, so a large gas
treatment facility is not needed on the North Slope. The scale
of the preliminary treatment plant for domestic demand is
equivalent to the scale of the gas being transported in Phase 1
which is less than 10 percent of the total (indisc.).
SENATOR GIESSEL questioned what the cost would be to Alaskans to
buy their own gas.
3:56:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recalled that there was discussion
about pipe being acquired and asked who would be paying for that
pipe.
MR. PRESTIDGE answered that the early works, including the pipe
purchases, would be funded by Glenfarne.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether that would be above and
beyond the $150 million commitment.
MR. PRESTIDGE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON shared his understanding that the state
must be a party to the negotiation with local governments for
some reduction of the property and equipment tax.
MR. PRESTIDGE shared his belief that yes, that is correct. He
noted that one of the key features of the project is that it's a
joint venture between Glenfarne and the State of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the rights to the project
would be sold or given if the state decides to invest in the
equity share.
MR. PRESTIDGE reiterated that the state would be given the
opportunity to invest in each of the subprojects.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised that the first investment
opportunity, or "benchmark," could be the most important one.
MR. PRESTIDGE personally agreed with Representative Josephson,
as it would seem that participating in the first phase of a
pipeline project that delivers gas to Alaskans would be a
priority.
4:00:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether Glenfarne's willingness to
"lay out all of its cards," as well as taking the lead and a
significant risk, is an indication of their level of confidence
in the project.
MR. PRESTIDGE agreed, and recalled initial conversations between
himself, Glenfarne's CEO, and the legislature about their
willingness to "quarterback" a consortium of capable partners
who would deliver the project. In reference to slide 6, "Adding
World Class Partners & Accelerating Market Interests," he
encouraged the committee to look toward the project's public
partnerships, such as Worley; POSCO, a major Korean steel
manufacturer; and Baker Hughes, a global leader in energy
technology who prides themselves in only investing in projects
that they truly believe will advance. He explained that the
project has also benefitted from accelerated success in
marketing LNG. He explained that the LNG export facility has 20
million tons of export capacity. In order to achieve project
financing, the target is to have 80 percent, or 16 million tons,
of the export capacity under a long-term third-party contract.
Currently, Glenfarne reported 11 million tons of customer
commitments, which is more than halfway to target. Continuing
to slide 7, "Accelerating Market Interests," he explained that
LNG purchase commitments are a long process that start with
initial indications of interest. He listed the companies that
have signed letters of intent (LOIs) as follows: CPC, the
national oil and gas company of Taiwan; PTT, the national oil
and gas company of Thailand; Jera, the largest buyer of LNG in
the world out of Japan; POSCO; and Tokyo Gas. He described the
group as a diverse panel of the most conservative and
sophisticated buyers of LNG in the world. He explained that
these partnerships are not just a result of good public
relations, it is the result of a careful, methodical, process of
educating customers on the advantages of this project. These
companies have deployed teams of technicians, engineers, and
financial analysts to get to this point.
4:06:23 PM
MR. PRESTIDGE continued to slide 8, "Alaska Engagement
Outreach," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
In-State Outreach:
• Contractor summit: ~200 statewide professionals
• Engagements with 100+ Alaska firms, including ANCs,
village and tribal corporations
• Online portal
• Directory of local businesses
• Open houses
• Anchorage office opened
Collaborative Workforce Development
• Contractors
• Unions
• State DOLWD & Alaska Workforce Investment
Board
• University
• Local training centers
MR. PRESTIDGE described the contractor selection process, which
is currently in progress, on slide 9, "Alaska Engagement
Opportunities," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Contracting In Progress
• Steel
• Line pipe
• Four pipeline spreads
• Work camps
• Gravel
• Logistics
• Fuel
• Block valves
Employment Opportunities
• 3,500 Logistics professionals
• 2,300 Laborers
• 1,900 Engineers
• 1,600 Pipefitters and welders
• 450 Ironworkers
• 400 Electricians
• 300 Carpenters
• 1,450 Others
MR. PRESTIDGE emphasized that Glenfarne is committed to moving
the project forward to completion and is well equipped to
address any challenges that arise. He said Glenfarne looks
forward to continued dialogue, engagement, and cooperation with
the legislature, and expressed appreciation for the support.
4:11:26 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL stated her appreciation for Glenfarne's
enthusiasm for the project; however, she said the same
enthusiasm has been expressed in the past over Alaska's fishing,
mining, and oil industries. She commented on the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS) project, which required a large out-of-
state workforce, noting that currently, 24 percent of TAPS
employees reside out-of-state. She said she would need to take
all of this into account as she considers the project.
MR. PRESTIDGE acknowledged Glenfarne's enthusiasm; however, the
enthusiasm is underpinned by its expertise in project
development and financing. He reiterated that Glenfarne has
built, financed, and operated 60 assets across America and is
building and developing LNG projects along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The enthusiasm comes from a core belief in the commercial,
financial, and technical development of the project. He added
that understanding the state perspective on Alaska's workforce
development is important to Glenfarne, as they shape the project
moving forward.
4:14:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked whether Glenfarne had anything to
share on LNG import and the status and timeline of that project.
MR. PRESTIDGE responded that part of Glenfarne's work over the
past 8 months has been dedicated to reviewing and conducting the
engineering on the marine terminal and LNG storage tank on site
of the LNG facility. He said Glenfarne continues to push
forward on the optionality and capability of LNG exports as a
part of the overall Alaska LNG project and views it as potential
short-term solution to any energy shortage, as well as a long-
term backup option for energy security if needed in the future.
He added that the timeline on that project is complicated
because it's not dissimilar to the overall timeline of the
pipeline, which has projected the completion of the LNG import
terminal around the end of (indisc.).
4:16:09 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:16 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| LBAC Revised Agenda AFTERNOON of 11.19.25 (FINAL Revised on 11.17.25).pdf |
JBUD 11/19/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| GaffneyCline Presentation to LBA re LNG Policy Implications 11.19.25 Final.pdf |
JBUD 11/19/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| GaffneyCline Speaker Bios.pdf |
JBUD 11/19/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| AGDC Presentation to LBA 11.19.25.pdf |
JBUD 11/19/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Glenfarne AK LNG Presentation to LBAC (Revised and Presented to Committee) - Final 1119 700.pdf |
JBUD 11/19/2025 1:30:00 PM |