Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
01/29/2016 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Project by State of Alaska Gas Team | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 29, 2016
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Benjamin Nageak, Co-Chair
Representative David Talerico, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Hawker, Vice Chair
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Geran Tarr
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PROJECT BY STATE
OF ALASKA GAS TEAM
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
FRITZ KRUSEN, Interim President
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation on
organization, coordination, and decision making for the Alaska
Liquefied Natural Gas (AK LNG) State Gas Team (SGT).
MARTY RUTHERFORD, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation on
organization, coordination, and decision making for the Alaska
Liquefied Natural Gas (AK LNG) State Gas Team (SGT).
CRAIG RICHARDS, Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation on
organization, coordination, and decision making for the Alaska
Liquefied Natural Gas (AK LNG) State Gas Team (SGT).
RANDALL HOFFBECK, Commissioner
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation on
organization, coordination, and decision making for the Alaska
Liquefied Natural Gas (AK LNG) State Gas Team (SGT).
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:33 PM
CO-CHAIR BENJAMIN NAGEAK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Nageak,
Talerico, Tarr, Josephson, Seaton, Olson, and Hawker were
present at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION(S): Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Project by State
of Alaska Gas Team
PRESENTATION(S): Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Project by State
of Alaska Gas Team
1:03:30 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK announced that the only order of business would
be a presentation on the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (AK LNG)
Project by the State of Alaska Gas Team. He asked the
presenters to introduce themselves.
1:04:28 PM
FRITZ KRUSEN, Interim President, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC), at the request of Representative Hawker,
introduced himself as a newcomer before the committee and the
public. He said he is an electrical engineer with 38 years of
experience in the oil and gas industry. He said he has worked
in the continental United States with natural gas gathering,
processing, and transmission lines. He told the committee he
was hired on with AGDC as the Vice President of the Alaska
Liquefied Natural Gas (AK LNG) Project and works with the
Project Steering Committee, which is the technical guiding group
for the AK LNG Project. Mr. Krusen commented that he hopes when
people see him they see not him personally, but AGDC. He
thanked the committee for allowing him to speak today.
1:09:10 PM
MARTY RUTHERFORD, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), instructed
the committee to turn to slide 2 of the PowerPoint presentation
where she outlined what the team will be discussing. She stated
the summary would include the statutory authorities within each
agency, their roles with the decision-making process for AK LNG
actions within each authority, the state team organizational
structure, and the coordination involved between agencies and AK
LNG. She listed the included agencies as the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), the Department of Revenue (DOR), the
Department of Law (DOL), and the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC). She concluded that time willing, an update
would be given on the status of the TransCanada (TC) buyout and
the AGDC presidential search.
1:10:46 PM
CRAIG RICHARDS, Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL), moved
to slide 3, "Senate Bill 138 Summary," and reviewed the
provisions of Senate Bill 138 [passed and signed into law in
2014]. One of the things Senate Bill 138 did was to provide the
relative authority for the different governmental authorities,
particularly DNR and DOR. He stated Senate Bill 138 also
reworked production tax so the State of Alaska (SOA) would have
the option to take production taxes in actual gas as opposed to
money. He added AGDC was created to be the entity in charge of
the state-owned infrastructure for the project. He concluded by
saying Senate Bill 138 created the Municipal Advisory Gas
Project Review Board (MAGPRB), which is the municipal entity
Commissioner Hoffbeck works with to develop a property tax
framework that is acceptable and works for the varying state
municipalities.
1:13:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested clarification of Mr. Richards's
statement about taking production Tax-As-Gas (TAG) and asked if
that would decrease the state's monetary participation in the
project.
MR. RICHARDS replied it would provide the option, if ultimately
selected by the producers and upon approval of the legislature,
for production taxes to be taken at the wellhead in gas as
opposed to money. He further clarified that TAG decreases the
amount of cash at the point of production the state receives
while increasing Alaska's commercial participation in the
infrastructure, marketing, delivery, and sale of gas.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wanted to make sure that the
state's participation in this would not decrease Alaska's
monetary share.
MR. RICHARDS explained Alaska's royalty share of 12.5 percent
interest without the provision would increase to 25 percent with
the TAG provision. He reiterated that fact by noting it puts the
state at a quarter, versus an eighth, commodity participant for
its own gas.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that it wasn't a
decrease in money in the project so much as it was in the
upstream value and how that was derived.
MR. RICHARDS answered yes.
1:15:32 PM
MR. RICHARDS said slide 4, "Overview of State Authorities,"
would be better left for each individual agency to explain.
1:15:58 PM
MS. RUTHERFORD stated that slide 5, "Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Authority for AK LNG Project," names which
negotiations the DNR commissioner is authorized to make. These
include commercial agreements, modification of some lease terms,
and marketing volumes of Royalty-In-Kind (RIK) and TAG for the
state. She explained that under Alaska Statute (AS) 38.05, DNR,
in consultation with DOR, is allowed to manage the sale of gases
acquired when companies decide to pay their production taxes in
gas versus money. She said DNR also negotiates the "very
foundational" threshold agreement referred to as the Upstream
Gas Supply and Balancing Agreement.
MS. RUTHERFORD expressed the importance of understanding the 25
percent ownership position. She said AS 38.05 allowed the State
of Alaska to determine if AK LNG progresses and producers to
choose to pay their production taxes in gas at a 13 percent
gross payment in addition to 12.5 percent royalties received as
a landowner, as well as what the payment should be out of the
Point Thomson Unit. Ms. Rutherford said, "Right now there are a
number of what's called net profit share leases and sliding
scale leases and ... we are in the process of negotiating fixed
royalty shares on those and it is the combination of the three
pieces that will determine exactly what our total gas share will
be." She estimated the amount to be between 24 and 25 percent,
but stressed that 25 percent is not a guarantee. Once
negotiations are finalized over the next few months the
percentage will become more precise.
MS. RUTHERFORD related that the DNR commissioner may make
certain modifications to AK LNG Project leases for the initial
project term (IPT). She explained IPT to mean whatever term the
legislature and executive branch determine the initial life of
the project to be.
1:19:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER commented on the quality of the working
document the presenters brought forth today. He asked if there
were many times where there was a discrepancy among agencies
that required a higher level to figure out roles and
responsibilities of the various agencies.
MS. RUTHERFORD replied, "Not specifically," but indicated there
were some areas needing clarification, such as "elements that
fell within certain issues." She told the committee that in-
state gas supply has a demand and a supply side that would be
seen later in the responsible, accountable, consulted, and
informed (RACI) chart showing specific work stream
responsibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said the "lack of granularity" had been
one of the biggest issues with the legislature in the past. He
stated the importance of knowing who the legislature was working
with, which role each entity played, and where the
responsibility rested. He asked how long this granularity had
been sorted out.
MS. RUTHERFORD responded it depends on which person was asked.
She offered her feelings it was not fully captured until the
last week and a half, but there was a good understanding of it
within the teams.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER surmised that that would explain the
governor's public comments of last Saturday [1/23/16] explaining
how everyone was on the same page and details had all been
sorted out.
MS. RUTHERFORD answered that was correct. She noted everything
had to be written down and in black and white to dismiss any
misconceptions.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER expressed his appreciation for getting
issues sorted out.
1:23:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired whether the TAG percentage of
between 12.5 and 13 percent was about the same for other LNG
projects around the world. He further questioned why that
number was chosen and not, for example, 20 percent.
MS. RUTHERFORD replied she would think of it slightly
differently. The Prudhoe Bay leases were signed and fixed at
12.5 percent as "deal one leases" back when the first Prudhoe
Bay lease sale occurred. Those leases are the bulk of the
leases that set the royalty amounts. Some of the new form
leases for Point Thomson have different royalty percentages, net
profit share, and sliding scale, and agencies are working to fix
those so there can be a well understood lease to determine
actual royalty amounts. The legislature determined that the
producers had the ability to convert their payment of production
tax to gas by fixing it at 13 percent. She stated she was not
involved in the discussions but understood that the range that
was considered by the legislature was 8-13 percent, and the
legislature chose the higher number. She reported it is the 13
percent gross that is added to the actual royalty percentages of
leases at both Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson. She informed the
committee that is where the 24-25 percent comes from and the
actual rate will be set once negotiations are complete and will
be applied to all leases for the volume offtake. That rate will
not be fixed by the legislature, but instead by the offtake
determination that will be initially made for both Prudhoe Bay
and Point Thomson, and will set the equity share for the rest of
the project.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the legislature had
targeted that properly when it looked at the 8-13 percent range,
and chose 13 percent, or if the legislature had cheated current
and future generations [of Alaskans] out of a "more reasonable
share of the value of production."
MS. RUTHERFORD allowed that she had not researched that.
1:28:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON shared his interpretation that whatever
the RIK and TAG percentage is going to be, the participation
percentage will be as well.
MS. RUTHERFORD confirmed that is correct.
1:28:45 PM
MS. RUTHERFORD instructed the committee to turn to slide 6,
"Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Roles/Focus Areas for AK
LNG Project." She said this slide further articulates DNR's
statutory responsibilities for the AK LNG Project. She
explained some of the main roles of DNR are to negotiate
commercial agreements, hold the best interest of the state in
its hands, and move forward the main policy objectives of the
state. The department is charged with the task of managing some
of the risks associated with entering the project as a
commercial player and not as the "normal sovereignty." Ms.
Rutherford explained a "normal sovereignty" relationship is
established by royalty and taxing, such as property tax and
production tax. She stressed the fact this will be a "totally
new ball game" for the state as an "equity player." She
illustrated DNR will have two roles, marketing of in-state
natural gas and delivery of domestic gas supply to AGDC. She
added that AGDC will also function as the shipper for the AK LNG
Project. Ms. Rutherford advised the committee the gas will come
off of the two units, down the pipelines, into the gas treatment
plant (GTP), into an LNG facility in Nikiski, and, at that
point, come off the marine system and enter the export market.
At various flanges along the way the gas may come off as natural
gas, which AGDC will either aggregate or facilitate the sale of
directly to the in-state market. She stressed that the main
goal is protecting the best interest of the state.
1:30:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER shared his interpretation of how the 25
percent of state ownership is determined. He referenced
discussions from a previous House Resources Standing Committee
meeting [1/27/16] explaining the project is progressing. He
mentioned once the state gets through Pre-Front End Engineering
and Design (Pre-FEED) then the discussion could move on to
Front End Engineering and Design (FEED). He pondered a
situation where the DNR commissioner felt RIK was not in the
best interest of the state and decided not to make that choice.
Representative Hawker inquired whether capital costs remain the
full 25 percent if equity ownership is reduced to 13 percent in
the pipe.
MS. RUTHERFORD replied it is a little different than that. If a
determination cannot be made to prompt RIK verses Royalty-In-
Value (RIV), it wouldn't give producers the option to even pay
their production taxes in gas. The State Gas Team (SGT) is
presuming it can get to an RIK decision. She explained this is
done by minimizing the state's risk and costs while maximizing
revenue options. She further responded to Representative
Hawker's question by drawing attention to the second half of the
slide. She explained that by ensuring the state has the
appropriate gas lifting rights and access to fundamental
information, it will have the right tools to deal with potential
buyers. This will make the state what producers call a
"synthetic working interest owner," which is needed to convince
buyers it actually has the gas to sell. Upstream costs such as
field costs out of the units and also carbon dioxide (CO)
2
disposal costs from the GTP will need to be determined. With an
adequate market structure to minimize transportation and
development costs while advancing the revenue stream, the state
will be "situated very much like a producer." She ended by
explaining the importance of protecting the state's acquisition
and sale of gas just like [producers] do, because it is those
upstream revenues that will be the state's source of new
revenues.
1:34:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER clarified by offering his understanding
that should the state elect not to take RIK, the state's
interest in the project will not be lowered. He reiterated his
question if, at that point, the state would still be responsible
for paying the full 25 percent for project costs. He stated
that was the scenario he previously offered that Ms. Rutherford
responded to as "wasn't quite that way."
MS. RUTHERFORD clarified that it is [the state's] gas supply
that "triggers our equity position within the entire AK LNG kit
... infrastructure, so we would be down to zero." She
referenced [Senate Bill] 138 [passed in the Twenty-Eighth Alaska
State Legislature] and explained the structure of the bill,
combined with the decision to take RIK, as being what triggers
the producer's ability to initiate a TAG decision. She
explained that a lease calculation determines the total volume
of gas to come up with a percentage that is the total ownership
percentage and is "solidified within the infrastructure. If we
don't take RIK, it doesn't trigger TAG, we have zero portion of
infrastructure."
1:35:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER offered his interpretation of a zero
ownership scenario for the state where value is extracted using
alternate mechanisms by taking it at the wellhead and the
"industry basically carrying the gas."
MS. RUTHERFORD acknowledged Representative Hawker's statement by
saying, "That could certainly be the alternative approach." She
stressed that is why SGT is presuming it can get an RIK
decision. She explained in order to do that the commercial
arrangements will have to be locked to ensure risks and rewards
can be properly calculated. The state will then be able to
weigh those factors as a decision moves forward into a FEED
decision and final investment decision (FID).
1:36:37 PM
MS. RUTHERFORD reviewed slide 7, "Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Functional Organization for AK LNG Project."
She explained the chart showed the commissioner at the top,
followed by herself, deputy commissioner, overseeing both the
Division of Oil & Gas (DOG) and North Slope Gas
Commercialization (NSG). She oversees subject matter upstream
experts from DOG who have both resource and technical
perspectives. The commercial lead is Antony Scott. The
upstream lead is Steve Wright, Chevron retiree, who is on
contract with NSG. Midstream Lead is David deGruyter. She
stated NSG is currently trying to contract someone to fill the
vacant marketing lead position who can help negotiate the
marketing structure. There are numerous approaches to the
structure such as: a four party joint venture; an individual
market structure with each company; a fully independent equity
organization where DNR sets up a unique structure to compete
"head to head" with other companies; or, as allowed by Senate
Bill 138, the department could enter into an agreement with
individual companies where they would sell [the state's] gas on
terms "functionally equal to however they sell their own gas."
She explained the position is currently being filled through a
contractor while commercial terms are negotiated.
MS. RUTHERFORD described slide 8, "Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Decision-Making Process," as showing the process
where the SGT, with the help of subject matter experts (SME),
develops proposals, decisions and policy direction, then
consults the Office of the Commissioner, which makes the final
decision.
1:39:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON shared his understanding that
ExxonMobil Corporation will not enter a joint venture [with the
state]; however the other two [BP and ConocoPhillips] would.
MS. RUTHERFORD answered she is not at liberty to talk about any
party's position. She admitted that discussions are ongoing
with all parties.
1:40:38 PM
RANDALL HOFFBECK, Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR),
turned to slide 9, "Department of Revenue (DOR) Authority for AK
LNG Project," and elected to skip reviewing the first part of
the slide, because it had already been discussed. He said DOR
is in charge of managing the revenue received for gas delivered
to the state. He stated in relation to governance and
commercial and fiscal agreements, DOR is continually monitoring
those negotiations. The decision for the project [AK LNG] has
not yet been made, because it is mostly guided by the structure
of the contract.
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK announced slide 10, "Department of Revenue
(DOR) Roles/Focus Areas," and explained Lazard presented DOR
preliminary reports to the legislature last year [2015] on a
range of financing options. The department is in consultation
with DNR on negotiations of various other contracts. Right now
DOR's primary focus is identifying and recommending financing
options and opportunities for co-investment by other entities
within Alaska, including municipal and regional corporations and
even individual Alaskans. He explained the analysis for all the
options will be included in Lazard's final report. He pointed
out that if the co-investment option is available, then
participation decisions will not be made until later on. He
noted this is because of the high risk involved in early
participation due to having money tied up for an extended period
of time.
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK relayed DOR is working directly with the
Municipal Advisory Gas Project Review Board (MAGPRB) consulting
on an appropriate tax structure for payment in lieu of taxes
(PILT). He stated that DOR presented a draft report to the
Senate Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee
yesterday [1/28/16] and a final report should be on the
governor's desk by Tuesday or Wednesday [2/2/16 or 2/3/16].
1:44:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented on property tax, especially in
reference to the North Slope, which is being looked at in
relation to oil taxes. He asked if this structure is similar to
the current way municipalities and the state split revenue for
property taxes.
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK replied no, the structure on this will be
very different than the current structure. Presently the bulk
of the revenue flows to the jurisdiction where the asset
resides. It has been made clear to MAGPRB the previous outcome
would not be likely this time around and the state will be
keeping significantly more of the revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the MAGPRB report would
include a general breakdown of what percentage goes to the state
treasury versus to municipalities.
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK responded no, the focus of this summer was
determining the impact on the project. He stated they really
honed in on how much the project would be paying in PILT during
construction and throughout the life of the contracts. He
declared that is key to moving the project forward. The second
focal point would be the relationship of municipalities and the
state: and how much flows through to the municipalities versus
how much resides with the state. He informed the committee
those would not hold the project back.
1:46:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the net present value
calculation is part of the decision-making process. He opined
part of the problem is that unless the legislature has a good
net present value (NPV) to this project, "it's going to be
difficult to make that decision." He further elaborated it is
going to be critical to have that [NPV] as one of the
fundamentals of what the state looks at when making a decision,
because the portion the state treasury receives could be a
significant portion of the value of the project.
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK agreed and said when contracts come before
the body they will include recommendations on what that spilt
should be. He noted that MAGPRB has not identified a reasonable
spilt on [the municipalities'] behalf. He also offered his
assumption [DOR and the MAG group] will be in disagreement on
what that split should be when the bill is brought to the
legislature.
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK explained a lot of the focus right now is
analyzing the commercial agreements for the impact on state
funding and making sure funding sources are not excluded. He
also said DOR is engaged in the development of governance
agreements.
1:48:00 PM
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK returned to the PowerPoint presentation.
He directed attention to slide 11, "Department of Revenue (DOR)
Functional Organization for AK LNG Project," and said the chart
shows DOR's role is much smaller than that of DNR. He
communicated how everything in DOR, in relation to the AK LNG
Project, is reported up through Deputy Commissioner Dona
Keppers. He further relayed that DOR has primarily used its
existing staff and has not "staffed up."
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK addressed slide 12, "Department of Revenue
(DOR) Decision-Making Process," where he noted DOR uses the same
reporting format as DNR. He said his staff did all the "work on
the floor" then reported back to him before any decisions were
advanced to the higher level team.
1:49:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER pointed out the similarities in DNR and
DOR summary slides. He stated his term for the three SGT
executives sitting before the committee today [Commissioner
Hoffbeck, Deputy Commissioner Rutherford, and Attorney General
Richards] is "the administration's executive committee." He
revealed that at the end of the day, he credits them for making
all the big decisions. Representative Hawker questioned the
relationship between "the administration's executive committee"
and the contractors. He requested clarification on who was
physically at the negotiations table directing the strategy. He
inquired if the state is vesting in the contractors' authority
to make decisions on its behalf or if ["the administration's
executive committee"] was actually at the table having
information fed to it via the contractors.
MS. RUTHERFORD replied it is a matrix structure where each of
the teams have various integrated groups within them. She
elaborated that the particular issue determines which
representatives from each agency will be involved. She used the
upstream issue of gas balancing and supply as an example where
full-time contractor Steve Wright heads a team which almost
hourly consults with policy makers or more often if
clarification is needed. She explained the daily negotiations
are really about understanding each party's position and trying
to come up with agreements that address everyone's issues.
MS. RUTHERFORD explained that the primary negotiators are Ken
Minesinger with Greenburg Traurig and Manzer Ijaz with Milbank
who both hold very different expertise. She stressed that
neither of the negotiators are ever left alone at the
negotiating table and are always supported by members of the
team, such as (DNR) executive upstream manager Steve Wright.
1:54:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said it was his understanding that the
actual negotiations were taking place by the two hired
consultants. He stated his appreciation for the clarification.
He reiterated that these are not inexpensive consultants and
questioned if the $11 million being paid out was giving the
state the most value.
MS. RUTHERFORD answered, "Absolutely we are. Yes. It is a
world class project." She shared how all agencies are trying to
do their best at cost-saving measures, such as doing things
electronically and telephonically whenever they can, but she
emphasized that the expertise of the negotiators is one expense
well worth the value. She further stated that the guidance from
[the Department of Law] and subject matter experts (SME) ensures
the state is not at a disadvantage.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER asked Ms. Rutherford for assurance that
"the [administration's] executive committee" has not vested the
state's decision-making authority with these consultants, but
rather that authority and the onus of policy making was still
retained by the state's commissioners and attorney general.
MS. RUTHERFORD replied, "Absolutely."
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER thanked Ms. Rutherford for the
clarification and stated how important clarity was in how the AK
LNG Project should be developed.
1:56:48 PM
MR. KRUSEN directed attention to slide 13, "Alaska Gasline
Development Corp. (AGDC) Authority for AK LNG Project." He
admitted slight embarrassment in having to come before the
authority that created AGDC and telling it what its authorities
are. He touched on the fact that AGDC is responsible for
developing the project and for acquiring ownership rights to the
pipeline and gas treatment and liquefaction plants. He
acknowledged the appropriations set forth by the legislature for
the taking of TC. He announced AGDC is now the full 25 percent
representative on the facilities chain. As result of the
legislative appropriations, AGDC is also in charge of payroll
and makes "the cash calls." He finished by stating that AGDC
works with DNR and DOR to maximize the value of Alaska's gas.
MR. KRUSEN introduced slide 14, "Alaska Gasline Development
Corp. (AGDC) Roles/Focus Areas," and said that most of the
information on this slide has already been addressed. He
directed the committee's attention to the middle dot under the
key project areas, which said AGDC functions as the transporter
for Alaska's gas. He referenced Ms. Rutherford's previous
explanation that the shippers' role belongs to whoever actually
owns the molecules. He explained the shippers are the ones that
move the molecules down the line and said the relationship is
defined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He
illustrated "We operate sort of in the sandbox called FERC
section 3."
1:59:18 PM
MR. KRUSEN explained slide 15, "Alaska Gasline Development Corp.
(AGDC) Functional Organization for AK LNG Project," as being an
organizational chart. He said AGDC is a public corporation, so
it has a board. He mentioned the president position as
currently being filled by himself. Next he stated the External
Affairs and Government Relations (EAGR) position as being filled
by Miles Baker. He said AGDC, as a project organization, really
embraces the contractor model. He told about the commercial
side of the chart, with Lieza Wilcox as the vice president. He
talked about normal contract work where a person is hired for
the duration of a job and then is done. He explained AGDC has
an exception with Ms. Wilcox, which he calls "a hat position,"
where she actually wears the AGDC hat. He mentioned Bruce
Tangeman, the finance and administrative vice president, who was
in the audience. He further explained the program manager
position, which Frank Richards, "the fellow who brought you ASAP
[Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline]," fills.
MR. KRUSEN moved to slide 16, "Alaska Gasline Development Corp.
(AGDC) Decision-Making Process." He explained that technical
decision making is "pretty simple" because AK LNG has access to
the same SME as ASAP. He articulated that when it comes to
pipeline matters, Frank Richards and the SME get together, and
for gas treatment or LNG plant matters, he and the SME get
together. Mr. Krusen explained he sits on the Project Steering
Committee and Frank Richards sits on the Management Committee.
He stressed that decisions are not made in isolation. If a
policy decision needs to be made, consultation ensues with
others at the table. He said that "by delegation of authority"
some decisions are made by the president and the board.
2:02:49 PM
MR. RICHARDS announced slide 17, "Department of Law (DOL)
Functional Organization for AK LNG Project." He started by
saying that as Attorney General, he oversees the DOL. He
explained the main purpose of DOL in the AK LNG Project was to
provide legal advice to all of the agencies. He said according
to AS 42.08.220, AGDC has the right to maintain its own internal
or outside counsel for matters concerning internal governance
issues or litigation. The department is ultimately AGDC's
counsel for commercial agreements and contracts.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON inquired whether DOL currently has any
outside counsel on retainer.
MR. RICHARDS confirmed DOL does have outside counsel under
retainer. He elaborated that two large international law firms,
Milbank and Greenburg Traurig are on retainer. Mr. Richards
explained DOL received a "fairly substantial" supplemental
appropriation [during a 2015] special session for the two firms
to draft commercial agreements. He explained, "That money, we
have not been burning it particularly heavy, the last month or
two because the commercial negotiations aren't churning
documents in most of the work streams at this point." He
offered his hope things will pick up over the next couple
months.
MR. RICHARDS returned to slide 17 where he pointed out that
Jerry Juday is AGDC's primary contact for DOL. He explained
Martin Schultz and Elena Romerdahl are both assistant attorney
generals with DOL's Natural Resources Section and they are able
to attend virtually all meetings with their agency clients.
2:04:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER offered his understanding of using the two
big law firms Milbank and Greenburg Traurig. He also offered
his observation that negotiations have slowed down quite a bit
at this point. He referenced the 1/18/16 letter from Governor
Walker to oil and gas producers [ConocoPhillips, BP, and
ExxonMobil] that declared eight deliverables by the end of this
legislative session [April 2016]. He questioned why [the law
firms] have not been used heavily in this critical time.
MR. RICHARDS replied it is important to differentiate the roles
that outside counsel play. The two main lawyers hold the
negotiating role and are at the negotiation tables almost daily.
He disclosed that the expenses are not just being paid out for
one big lawyer to do all the talking, but also for the behind-
the-scenes work of drafting agreements and other documents. He
explained these can often times be 100-page documents. He
elaborated that most of the work streams are not at the document
drafting stage yet.
2:07:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER asked whether it would be possible to give
some benchmarks of the eight specific agreements that have to be
negotiated by end of session. He requested a basic status
update showing where negotiations are at this point. He also
asked when the last negotiation session was held and if a
timeline could be given.
MR. RICHARDS answered that it would "certainly be advisable" but
unfortunately most of that information is confidential.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER questioned whether the scheduling of
meetings was confidential.
MR. RICHARDS answered yes. He stressed he is not saying that is
the way things should be, just that that is how they are
currently structured.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER repeated his confidentiality question to
Mr. Richards.
MR. RICHARDS confirmed that virtually all communications are
confidential.
2:08:49 PM
MS. RUTHERFORD relayed that of the eight agreements
Representative Hawker referenced, seven are currently in
constant negotiations. She said there are weekly meetings for
some and daily meetings for others. She explained there are a
couple foundational agreements that are in the principle stage,
so there have not been any draft agreements made yet.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER asked whether Ms. Rutherford wasn't
breaking confidentiality by disclosing meeting frequencies.
MS. RUTHERFORD replied "I don't think so, because I didn't say
which ones were happening when. I am picking my words very
carefully here."
MS. RUTHERFORD further elucidated draft agreements cannot be
developed on a couple of foundational agreements, because they
are still in the principle stage. She assured the committee
that with the exception of one, there are ongoing negotiations
on all of them.
2:09:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER shared his understanding that besides the
two prime negotiation groups, there are a number of additional
contracted support people. He mentioned Mr. Audie Setters,
whose contract was not renewed, and inquired what had been done
to replace Mr. Setters. He also asked for clarification of the
responsibilities of Rick Harper.
MS. RUTHERFORD related that time has been spent identifying a
contractor to fill the special SME marketing position She
stated the prospective candidate has spent time negotiating as
well as has experience in LNG marketing. She said [SGT]
realizes these people are very expensive and is trying to
utilize them "in as focused a fashion as possible." Ms.
Rutherford discussed the perspective contractor has not only
"first chair position" experience but also has operational
experience. In response to Representative Hawker's question
about Mr. Harper, Ms. Rutherford said he and two gentleman from
Lummus Consultants International were brought on to have a "cold
eyes review" of the ASAP dataset to see if it was capable of
expansion, to assess the quality of the data, and to give a
timeline of bringing ASAP online. She stressed this was not
done to facilitate an alternative project. She stated it was
simply to make the information available, once analysis was
complete, to not only the executive branch but to the
legislature as well. Ms. Rutherford explained Mr. Harper and
the two individuals from Lummus worked with a combination of
data including that from Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA),
Alaska Pipeline Project (APP), and both the confidential and
non-confidential ASAP data. She advised that very few people
outside AGDC have access to the confidential data, but Mr.
Harper and the two gentlemen from Lummus took that and made it
into something that can go public. She clarified the background
data will not be public information now or in the future.
2:14:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER remarked that this testimony opened up a
whole new line of questioning. He asked if the use of
contractors to "scale up" the ASAP dataset was in any way
contradictory to, or competing with, AK LNG. He further
questioned if the "scaling up" was in response to Governor
Walker's 1/18/16 letter to oil and gas producers where there was
an "or else" provision at the end.
MS. RUTHERFORD answered, "Absolutely not." She stated this was
in direct response to what the administration requested. The
administration wanted a third party to look at possible
alternatives, and it was not about moving away from AK LNG. She
stressed that Governor Walker supports AK LNG. She said she
thought it was appropriate to have this information in case, for
some reason, the project doesn't make it to FEED. She explained
the administration doesn't have access to the confidential ASAP
dataset and wanted a third party opinion as to whether or not
ASAP would even be a viable option in a worse-case scenario
where all partners back out at the end of Pre-FEED.
2:17:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER commented that "this really takes us back
to last legislative session" when it was stated there would be a
"race to the finish line" with ASAP and AK LNG. Representative
Hawker noted had he known the "space race" was seemingly still
ongoing, he might have characterized his response a little
differently. He also asked who Lummus is and said he was not
familiar with the company.
MS. RUTHERFORD replied she would get that information to the
committee. She assured the committee that the administration is
in no way pursuing an alternative project. She reiterated that
this is about securing Alaska's options in the worst case
scenario if the AK LNG Project could not be developed.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said his concern still stands.
2:19:30 PM
MS. RUTHERFORD returned to the PowerPoint presentation and moved
to slide 18, "State AK LNG Organization Structure," to outline
the structure for decision makers/policy advisors and the SGT.
She emphasized the SGT and all of its agency representation are
the people who are working the AK LNG issues on a daily basis.
She explained they are represented by DOR internal SME and
outside consultants. She added the same can be said for DNR.
Ms. Rutherford articulated AGDC, SME, and consultants, supported
by DOL and the outside counsel, are the ones who are working
within the teams every single day; they bring analysis, options,
and questions to those next up the line such as the attorney
general and department commissioners. She elaborated that these
are the people who determine major policy issues, unless there
is no resolution, at which time the governor would get involved.
2:21:50 PM
MR. KRUSEN discussed slide 19, "AK LNG Project Value Chain
Model," stating that the SGT decided to use a block diagram to
explain the project. He reported that the two anchor fields,
Point Thomson Unit (PTU) and Prudhoe Bay Unit (PBU), and
Alaska's gas molecules, once acquired, are owned by DNR. He
explained the AK LNG "kit" comprises: a transmission line from
PTU about sixty miles, a transmission line one mile out of PBU,
a large gas treatment plant (GTP) primarily to remove carbon
dioxide (CO) from the natural gas, an eight hundred mile
2
pipeline, then an LNG plant in Nikiski. Mr. Krusen explained
that "kit" is what AGDC oversees. Once LNG is made it goes back
to DNR for sale. Mr. Krusen reported that in a previous
presentation [House Resources Standing Committee, on 1/25/16],
Mr. Butt explained "a ten to one ratio of natural gas that flows
into LNG versus that which is available for in-state use." He
informed the committee the smaller amount of the natural gas is
still DNR molecules, and once they "turn the corner," they are
in the AGDC aggregator function. He advised that AGDC will be
the responsible party for aggregator functions, which will give
small communities a voice at the table. He said AGDC's
management of aggregator functions will also ensure lessened
impacts on the LNG plant when gas is removed for seasonal,
weekly, and daily swings.
2:24:08 PM
MS. RUTHERFORD introduced slide 20, "SOA AK LNG Work Streams,"
as more on functionality. She reported the lower tier of
workers on the SGT are managing around 20 work streams that can
be broken into two main categories, commercial and technical.
She explained the commercial work streams are required to
develop the actual commercial agreements, whereas the technical
work streams deal with the upstream functions such as access to
the molecules. She noted the importance of these duties in
order for a synthetic owner to maintain the same functionality
of a working interest owner. She noted this is how Alaska's gas
is assured protection.
MS. RUTHERFORD discussed slide 21, "SOA AK LNG Organizational
Framework," noting that the SGT is designed around a
multidiscipline matrix that supports both the technical and
commercial needs. She explained each state team is led by
either DNR, DOR, or AGDC, and they all support one another. She
noted that within the teams, work is done both internally and
externally. She explained that for every hour of negotiation
time, seven should be spent doing development work. She
elaborated that general practice is to ensure whatever issue is
on the table is fully understood, and she said the state's
position can be clearly articulated. She concluded by saying
that policy guidance is also used to elevate issues to the
policy makers.
MS. RUTHERFORD shared slide 22, "AGDC, DNR and DOR
Coordination," explaining AGDC, DNR, and DOR, supported by DOL,
are working in jointly integrated processes. She opined the
processes have given them a better understanding and
appreciation for their statutory responsibilities. She noted
the importance of knowing when and where coordination is needed
and making sure efforts are not duplicated. She reported that
the full gas team meets weekly and AGDC and DOR meet biweekly.
2:28:14 PM
MR. KRUSEN moved to slide 23, "RACI Definitions," and explained
"R" stands for who is responsible, "A" stands for who is
accountable, "C" stands for who is consulted, and "I" stands for
who is informed. He elaborated upon the definitions.
MR. KRUSEN addressed slide 24, "Functional RACI Matrix," and
reported it as a broad functional overview of how the agencies
have come together. He drew attention to the first two columns
which show who is responsible and accountable for which
functions as follows: for resource ownership of the molecules,
Ms. Rutherford is responsible and Mr. Myers is accountable; for
sovereign taxation, Dona Keppers is responsible and Mr. Hoffbeck
is accountable; for project ownership and governance of the kit,
Frank Richards is responsible and Mr. Krusen is accountable; for
project financing, Ms. Keppers is responsible and Mr. Hoffbeck
is accountable; for LNG marketing, Ms. Rutherford is responsible
and Mr. Myers is accountable; for in-state gas delivery in the
kit complex, Brad Chastain is responsible and Mr. Krusen is
accountable; and for the FEED decision support package, Ms.
Rutherford is responsible and Governor Walker is accountable.
He explained the FEED decision support package is a very, very
complicated matter where a lot of people have to give input. He
stated AGDC will support the kit input and DOR will provide the
money input.
2:31:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to slide 24 and asked
Mr. Krusen, as the person accountable for in-state gas delivery,
how a competitive model with in-state gas is worked out. He
opined there is an LNG plant currently in Nikiski that is
liquefying gas at $6 for 1,000 cubic feet (1 Mcf) and Cook Inlet
might be less than that. He expressed his concern about in-
state gas supply [from the North Slope] being more expensive gas
and would be coming down to supply Fairbanks when there is
cheaper gas that could come up from a small diameter supply line
from Cook Inlet. He asked Mr. Krusen how that aggregation will
be worked out and set up. He wanted to know if aggregation will
be competitive or if demand will be aggregated from just the one
supply regardless of higher cost.
MR. KRUSEN replied that the gas aggregator function and in-state
gas sales are in early stages. He stated little has been done
so far because the aggregator corporation was just recently
established late last year [2015]. He said the aggregation
corporation will be "kicking off in a big way in February." Mr.
Krusen told the committee he can't really answer Representative
Seaton's question, but he acknowledged Representative Seaton had
raised some good points. He stated there will be gas coming
down from the North Slope and gas in Cook Inlet, and he offered
his assumption that the market will sort that out on its own.
He explained it is AGDC's prerogative to detour from doing
anything that will distort the market.
2:33:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified he wanted to know what the
policy decision is for the aggregator. He amplified his
question by asking if the aggregator is setting the demand to
come from one pipeline because that is the project or if the
aggregator will be looking for the cheapest supply out of each
place from where there is demand.
MR. KRUSEN answered it is still in the pre-mature stage and he
doesn't have the answer. He mentioned they will be going to
their board and giving them suggested parameters. He restated
he didn't know the answer other than they don't want to distort
the market.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern that in-state supply has
been a major concentration area. He shared his hope that when
it comes time for the policy questions regarding function -
whether it be cost, making sure there is supply, or deciding
whether to subsidize supply - AGDC comes back to the legislature
and consults for advice. He further expressed his hope that
AGDC will keep the legislature apprised of polices being
developed.
MR. KRUSEN agreed that is achievable. He said it could be done
ad hoc or at the AK LNG Project update required every four
months.
2:36:12 PM
MS. RUTHERFORD returned to the PowerPoint presentation and
explained that slide 25, "State Gas Team Primary Gas
Commercialization Functions," is just a block reference of what
was shown on slide 24. She elaborated that it shows who is
actually responsible for doing the work and who is responsible
for making decisions.
MR. KRUSEN directed attention to slides 26 and 27, regarding
tasks that were compiled last Saturday [1/23/16]. He explained
DOR, DOL, DNR, and AGDC will work through the major tasks of
turning Alaska North Slope natural gas into profit through the
AK LNG Project.
2:37:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked who was most responsible for
preparing the PowerPoint presented today.
MS. RUTHERFORD answered Lynn Kent from the gas line team was the
responsible member for developing the packets. It was also Ms.
Kent's task to gather everyone's input. Ms. Rutherford shared
that the actual RACI chart was filled out in real time at a work
session attended by all agency heads and support staff.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON questioned the confidence the
legislature should have for the remaining three years of the
administration that even as people come and go this is the
operating understanding of the departments.
MS. RUTHERFORD replied she absolutely believes yes.
MR. KRUSEN concurred and added that there may be some growth.
2:40:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said the structure of RACI is "masterful"
and asked who came up with it and what its origins were.
MR. KRUSEN replied it is a standard industry tool.
MS. RUTHERFORD said another version of it is called (LACTI).
LACTI stands for L-leads a task, A-approves task work product,
C-consulted on task, T-tasked to do the work, I-informed of the
work product. She suggested a big thanks be given to AGDC Chair
Dave Cruz for being the primary author for the process
suggestion.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER inquired whether this approach was
homegrown or whether someone was technical helping the group.
MR. KRUSEN responded that it is a tool everyone is comfortable
with. He mentioned that Brad Chastain, the lead for the in-
state function, is the person who facilitated the functional
overview, and Steve Wright helped with the more detailed aspects
and task orientation of the charts. Mr. Krusen offered his
understanding that the origin of the RACI model was with the
United States military but that he would have to go on a "Google
quest" to confirm.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER offered kudos to the facilitators and
remarked that they seem to have "gotten the behemoth under
control here."
MS. RUTHERFORD added to Mr. Krusen's previous statement that
there will be increasing granularity with use of the RACI charts
by noting that utilization of RACI will create an additional
subset of tasks, which will offer a more detailed understanding
of the work exercises.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted he liked the disclaimer on slides 26
and 27, which states, "Target Date is dependent upon alignment
of all AK LNG Parties, which is outside of state control."
2:43:27 PM
MS. RUTHERFORD returned to the presentation and noted slide 28
was an overview of slides 29-42 so she would not be going over
each slide, as they provided additional detail on the work
stream teams including: fiscal, property tax, expansion and
third party access, midstream system use, upstream, marketing,
finance, and governance. The slides cover identification of who
is lead on each of the work streams, what the duties are, and
who the team members are.
MR. KRUSEN directed attention to slide 43, "Update on
TransCanada Buyout," reporting that, as authorized by the
legislature, the state acquired TC's equity interest in AK LNG
on 11/24/15 for $64.6 million. The information and functions
have moved over from TC to AGDC, with the exception of some
minor bookkeeping, to dissolve the TC Alaska "midstream limited
partnership vehicle." One aspect of TC that still remains is
the "good work" of the roughly 13 project team members TC left
on contract through mid-May, who are mostly on the pipeline in
Calgary. Mr. Krusen stated the project is almost over the hump
on pre-FEED and the project team will start winding down. He
said TC has submitted its final cost report, which is still
being audited, but it looks like they might have to write Alaska
a check for a couple hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Krusen said,
"We all had very high respect for TransCanada." He added, "We
all have stepped up and taken their role to represent the State
of Alaska throughout the AK LNG Project."
2:47:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related one of the concerns about the buyout
was regarding some of the more technical work that was done
early on that would be beneficial to the project as it moved
forward. She inquired whether that highly valued product from
the early work became part of the AK LNG Project and whether
that process happened smoothly.
MR. KRUSEN answered yes. He offered his assumption that
Representative Tarr was referring to work done related to the
Alaska Pipeline Project (APP). He said it either has recently
been moved over or is still in transit to the AGDC document
management system. He assured the committee that firewalls had
been set up for Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) data, AK LNG
data, and APP data.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR shared her understanding that APP data
became an asset of the state and, should it become useful, the
state will have the option to gain back some of the value that
was paid for it.
MR. KRUSEN confirmed it is "absolutely a state asset" and is now
being looked after by the state pipeline company on behalf of
the state.
2:49:23 PM
MR. KRUSEN said slide 44 was an update on the AGDC presidential
search. He discussed B+R of Houston, Texas, as being the
executive search firm that was hired in November. The search
firm fees and expenses were not to exceed $170,000. He said
AGDC was advised it could take between 120 and 180 days,
although he is pleased to report that he doesn't think it will
take 120 days because there is such a high volume of interest.
He described the ideal candidate as someone who is a leader, has
a good technical and project foundation, knows gas pipeline
and/or LNG, and knows the commercial, the regulatory, and the
permitting world. He said B+R is an industry leader and thus is
not cheap. He also stated that the high volume of interest in
the position was more than anticipated.
2:51:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired whether Mr. Krusen would be
applying for the AGDC presidential position.
MR. KRUSEN replied no.
2:51:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR weighed the options available for what the
state can offer versus private sector employment. She expressed
her concern about appearing to have downgraded the salary for
this position. She questioned Mr. Krusen on whether [AGDC]
would have some of those same issues.
MR. KRUSEN confirmed the issue is complicated. He stressed that
that level of employment comes with certain expectations, such
as stock and bonuses, which are not often available to state or
public employees. He stated his realization that if they get
"too outside the box," AGDC will have to come back to the
legislature for approval to do whatever it takes to secure the
talent.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR requested that the legislature be kept in
the loop on this. She said she felt it's the sort of thing that
would require a lot of background information before a decision
was made and she wouldn't want to see a delay in the hiring of
an excellent candidate.
MR. KRUSEN explained it is the board, not staff, who does the
hiring. He reiterated that whoever is hired will have to be
able to work well with the legislature.
2:53:56 PM
MR. KRUSEN resumed the presentation and that noted that slide
45, "AGDC: In-State Gas Aggregator," reiterates much of what
had already been discussed. He explained that some of the
technical functions of the aggregator are addressed on this
slide, but Representative Seaton's points regarding commercial
aspects are not covered and shows that AGDC has a lot more work
to do.
2:54:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that Mr.
Krusen had previously said AGDC is responsible for cash calls.
He also recalled Commissioner Hoffbeck's earlier statement about
financing options. Representative Josephson also shared his
understanding of a possible $600-$800 million in 2017 that would
not be financed. He offered his assumption that the state would
essentially be writing a check for that portion of FEED. He
further questioned whether that should be subtracted in the
reckoning when looking at the $7 billion in the constitutional
budget reserve (CBR) and the $7 billion in the earnings reserve.
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK answered there has not been a final
decision made whether to bond or write a check. He explained
that if the decision is to pay for it out of assets, then it
would most likely be a CBR withdrawal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that in the fall special
session in 2015 there was quite a bit of criticism surrounding
leadership roles, and he congratulated the SGT for doing such a
great job of clarifying.
MS. RUTHERFORD said SGT would be happy to hear of Representative
Josephson's gratitude. She explained that slides 47-49 include
a reiteration of the various details from earlier in the
presentation and is a guide to the numerous acronyms used.
2:57:15 PM
MS. RUTHERFORD reviewed DNR's 1/27/16 letter to the House and
Senate Resources Standing Committees. She stated it simply
showed the money used to pay TC for its work on the project
before the November 24, 2015, buyout date when the state took
over TC's share of the project. She explained the total costs
to amount to $64.59 million which is broken down into $62.09
million in AK LNG cash calls and TC development costs and $2.5
million in carrying costs. She specified these amounts are
subject to audit, and audit results will be reported back to the
legislature upon completion.
MS. RUTHERFORD noted that included in the committee packet is an
update of the agreements and/or issues to be negotiated. She
said TC has been removed from the sheet on any post-buyout
agreements. She said most importantly this updated list shows
which agreements need legislative approval.
MS. RUTHERFORD concluded by stating that Representative Olson
requested clarification of the word "sovereign" and there was an
e-mail attachment in the packets explaining sovereign in
relation to how it is used in the context of the AK LNG Project.
2:59:45 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK thanked the presenters.
3:00:36 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1.29.16 HSE RES AKLNG State Gas Team Presentation.pdf |
HRES 1/29/2016 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 01 27 16 HSE RES - Sec 77 SB 138 - DNR Rpt.pdf |
HRES 1/29/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| HSE RES - AK LNG PJ Updated Timeline -Agreements to be Negotiated.pdf |
HRES 1/29/2016 1:00:00 PM |