Legislature(2015 - 2016)Nikiski Rec Center
06/16/2015 03:00 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Aklng Project Update with Steve Butt | |
| Aklng Fiscal Team Update | |
| State Gas Team Update | |
| Aklng Impacts to the Kenai Peninsula Borough | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
NIKISKI, ALASKA
June 16, 2015
3:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
SENATE RESOURCES
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator John Coghill
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bill Stoltze
Senator Bill Wielechowski
HOUSE RESOURCES
Representative Benjamin Nageak, Co-Chair
Representative David Talerico, Co-Chair
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Geran Tarr
MEMBERS ABSENT
SENATE RESOURCES
Senator Mia Costello, Vice Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
HOUSE RESOURCES
Representative Mike Hawker, Vice Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Anna Mackinnon
Senator Lesil McGuire
Representative Mike Chenault
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
AKLNG Project Overview with Steve Butt
- HEARD
AKLNG Fiscal Team Update
- HEARD
AKLNG Third Party Report of DNR and DOR Involvement
- HEARD
AKLNG Impact to the Kenai Peninsula Borough with Larry Persily
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
STEVE BUTT, Project Manager
AKLNG Project
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided AKLNG update.
DAVID VAN TUYL, Regional Manager
BP Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided AKLNG fiscal update.
BILL MCMAHON, Senior Commercial Advisor
ExxonMobil
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided AKLNG fiscal update.
DARREN MEZNARICH, Project Integration Manager
AKLNG Project
ConocoPhillips
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided AKLNG fiscal update.
VINCENT LEE, Director
Major Projects Development
TransCanada, LLC
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the AKLNG fiscal update, but
due to technical difficulties it was not clear enough to
summarize.
DAN FAUSKE, President
Alaska Gas Development Corporation (AGDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided AKLNG fiscal update.
KEN VASSAR, Council
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided AKLNG fiscal update on
constitutional issues.
AUDIE SETTERS, General Manager
State Gas Team
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided State Gas Team AKLNG Project
update.
RANDALL HOFFBECK, Commissioner
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided State Gas Team AKLNG Project
update.
DONA KEPPERS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided State Gas Team AKLNG Project
update.
RANDALL HOFFBECK, Commissioner
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided State Gas Team AKLNG Project
update.
LARRY PERSILY, Oil and Gas Advisor
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided AKLNG Project update for the Kenai
Peninsula Borough.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:01:25 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the joint meeting of the Senate and
House Resources Standing Committees to order at 3:00 p.m.
Present at the call to order were Senators Stoltze,
Wielechowski, Coghill, Micciche, and Chair Giessel;
Representatives Herron, Josephson, Tarr, Olson, Seaton, and Co-
Chairs Talerico and Nageak.
^AKLNG Project Update with Steve Butt
AKLNG Project Update with Steve Butt
3:04:20 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that the first part of today's hearing
is required as part of SB 138, which established the AKLNG
framework that passed in 2014. It authorized the State of Alaska
to enter into the pre-front end engineering and design (pre-
FEED) stage of an integrated gas project. She invited the
project manager, Steve Butt, to the table.
STEVE BUTT, Project Manager, AKLNG Project, related that a group
was put together under SB 138 to formalize the joint venture
agreement that includes BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil,
TransCanada and the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
(AGDC) acting as the state's agent for the downstream and
midstream segments (TransCanada is the midstream and AGDC is the
downstream).
3:07:11 PM
He said he was there on behalf of the 135 people who work on the
project and he was going to do his very best to help the
committee understand what they accomplished in the last four
months. He said those 135 people work with several hundred
contractors and different consortiums.
MR. BUTT said the AKLNG Project is an integrated LNG project to
treat, transport and liquefy natural gas that has been
discovered on the North Slope, principally in the Prudhoe Bay
field and the Point Thomson field that have somewhere between 32
and 35 tcf of gas. It moves about 3.3 bcf a day down to Nikiski
and that leaves about 2.4 bcf gas a day for liquefaction. The
balance is used for fuel and instate use. The 2.4 bcf/day is
about 10 times what the state uses right now, about enough
energy to fuel an economy the size of Germany. "It's an enormous
number." He said the scale of the project is very large and will
cost $45-$55 billion. The sheer complexity and scope of the
project requires careful integration.
MR. BUTT showed pictures of the Point Thomson drilling rig that
was finishing the third well for the IPS. The modules will start
being brought in for the compression facility over the next few
weeks. The gas treatment plant (GTP) is in final design and the
same optimization work is being done on building the
liquefaction facility.
3:09:28 PM
The Safety, Health and Environment Report indicated that there
was a minor non-toxic hydraulic fluid release of one cup that
was remediated.
They spent about $300 million, which includes $200 million on
pre-FEED work since 2014, about $25-30 million per month. The
work was primarily focused on two activities: one addressing
regulatory work with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) and the other doing basic design.
3:10:51 PM
Since their last talk, one great milestone issue came up: the
Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy announced an export
authorization for non-free trade authorization countries; that
means the project can ship LNG to anywhere in the world. The
request was for 20 million metric tons annually for a 30-year
period with a 12-year start to initiation of the permit and
construction. He pointed out that all numbers are unprecedented;
the Department of Energy has never granted an export
authorization of that duration, of that magnitude or with more
than seven years for construction. He said there was strong
support from the DOE and the federal government.
3:12:52 PM
Another big milestone is that FERC accepted their resource
report that initiated the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
This is an arduous process but it is required for getting an
authorization for construction.
3:14:06 PM
Key Messages:
1. AKLNG is an integrated LNG project: plant plus pipeline that
provides gas to Alaskans and can sell LNG anywhere in the world.
One of the most important characteristics of the integration
design is that there are four parties - ConocoPhillips, BP,
ExxonMobil and the State of Alaska - that have fundamental
claims to gas on the North Slope and rights to revenues
generated by that resource; 98 percent of the gas is owned by
project participants. Aligning the four parties is the
difference between a project that will work and one that will
struggle.
2. The ARC of Success is:
-Alignment: the state is a key participant with voting rights,
and rights to data. Partners can talk to each other with
transparency. The alignment factor is critical.
-Risk reduction: Pre-FEED identifies/mitigates risk.
-Cost reduction: cost of supply defines competitiveness.
MR. BUTT said his last message was that as the team goes through
all the work, they are trying really hard to match the pre-FEED
pace to all broader schedule issues. The pre-FEED work will keep
the project umbrella deliverables they all agreed to in the
Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) on track. But that is done as part
of a broader whole. Things like commercial issues all have to
come together so that when they get to different phase gates in
this project management structure they come together at the same
time. Otherwise pieces won't be ready at the right time.
3:19:55 PM
The design of the gas treatment plant (GTP) pad/camp has been
completed. Access to required construction gravel is confirmed
and water resource availability is being evaluated. A lot of
geotechnical work is being done at Nikiski and with the Prudhoe
Bay operator on a whole host of issues.
One real milestone was completing the winter near-shore
excavation program. They had to find out if the west dock at
Prudhoe Bay needed to be deeper to bring in modules in the
winter. Traditionally the work is done in the summer, but they
decided to use a traditional hydro-ax to cut the ice and pick up
the coils when they are frozen. Doing this in the winter will
free up the summer months for moving modules and logistics work.
This has been tested successfully.
3:23:23 PM
Pipeline work/design is continuing to go really well, he
reported. The route is complete and aligns with AGDC. Work is
continuing on key areas such as Atigun Pass, Glitter Gulch and
Nikiski. The western route across Cook Inlet was chosen. The
hydraulic work has been done and material design is being
evaluated along with weld procedures for the different sections
of the pipeline.
3:26:54 PM
MR. BUTT explained that all parties had become aligned on
pipeline routing across Cook Inlet. Since the focus has been on
Nikiski as the best site for the LNG plant, a lot of work had
been done on how to cross the Inlet and they believe the western
route is best. It's 14 miles shorter and has a lower
environmental impact; it avoids the 25 miles within the Susitna
Gunnery range with unexploded ordinance. Second, the mouth of
the Knik Arm is where all the eight Chugach power cables are and
the lay barge to put in the pipe has a 300 ft. anchor spread.
So, it would have to be able to move the 300 ft. spread without
hitting the power cables that would compromise power to the City
of Anchorage. The other big issue is that the mouth of the Knik
Arm has a lot of sediments coming in it from glaciers and it is
one of the most active seabeds in south Alaska. It has moved 40
feet in six years.
3:33:17 PM
They are continuing to improve marine facility design and
operational capability and actually did the civil work for the
gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant location. It would cost $3-4 billion
to move 131 million cubic yards of rock into Prince William
Sound (PWS) locations, but the extensive civil work impacts are
unknown and probably can't be permitted. He said it would be
easier to put a GTL in Seward because it has a great site for
shipping, but it is not a good place to find 800 flat acres for
the GTL plant.
In Cook Inlet, the challenge was getting across the Kenai River
and moving gas down into a premier salmon area. This would
increase costs because it makes the pipeline much longer, would
increase the environmental impact by crossing important waters.
Staying in an existing industrial area would limit that impact.
Additionally, with the Valdez/Prince William option there is the
difficulty in getting the gas back to the population centers in
Anchorage; that would require a very long spur going back
through Glennallen.
The Seward pipeline access point would be very difficult to
construct. He repeated that their exercise focuses around the
ability to be successful by keeping costs down and that is why
they are focusing on Nikiski as the plant site and have had
nothing but excellent welcomes from community members.
3:37:58 PM
MR. BUTT related that every year field work is done for
regulatory data and this year 250 people spent about $50 million
on it. They are primarily cultural heritage specialists who
found five cultural area sites, about 75 percent of them are old
Alaskan settlements.
CHAIR GIESSEL recognized Speaker Chenault in attendance.
SENATOR MICCICHE said a lot of people did not understand the
work behind the site choice.
MR. BUTT replied that a lot of very proprietary specialized
design work went behind it, but he would talk about what he
could. They had been making sure all participants are happy and
having some "good conversations" with the State Gas Team about
constructability challenges.
3:39:35 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE had a question, but due to technological
difficulties it was indiscernible.
MR. BUTT said as part of the Environmental Impact Statement
process, FERC wants to know what the community thinks about the
project in terms of different routings and other options. So,
last year they had a lot of stakeholder engagement holding 80
sessions; FERC had also held their own sessions. Everyone wants
confidence that the community supports the project.
He had four sessions in late May with about 700 people
representing about 300 Alaska businesses, because local Alaskans
have knowledge on how to work in Alaska which will help drive
down costs. Those are "going really well." The U.S. Coast Guard
is very supportive. He related that the White House sees this
project favorably because the limited carbon footprint is very
efficient with all the CO being put back in the ground.
2
They take environmental responsibility for protecting marine
mammals and habitat whatever route is taken. That is why
extensive pre-FEED work went into coming up with a really good
design that works for all the stakeholders. It will provide
"comfort" that the design really works when they got to the FEED
stage decision. "We really want to get it right," he said, and
"Working on the wrong line gets very expensive very fast."
He said the labor and logistics study assured understanding of
how this huge project would get built. The scale is enormous and
means 15,000 more jobs in Alaska.
3:47:42 PM
They had great dialogues with the different labor unions, the
Department of Labor and the Native corporations on developing
the craft labor skills that are needed, but there is so much
work that some of it will have to be exported. That is the only
way to keep the project economic.
MR. BUTT remarked how hard it is to drive buses of 40 people
safely on a highway and that 3,500 people will be working on
site. How will they be moved along with the 250 thousand tons of
steel that will need to be fabricated and get it landed in the
right way? All ports in Alaska are being looked at, multiple
ports for different materials.
3:48:36 PM
Lastly, Mr. Butt covered forward plans. The Joint Venture
Agreement (JVA) is a playbook telling them how to build an AKLNG
Project. As part of that, everyone agreed on what work had to
get done to make sure that pre-FEED questions can be answered;
that work is on track and will be complete and available for
shareholder review in the fourth quarter of 2015. This will
inform additional work.
MR. BUTT said they must keep their FERC and EIS work on track;
the first draft of the resource report is done. The second draft
is expected in early 2016. They want to keep the engineering
deliverables and the FERC documents together.
With that said, they need to keep working with the state to
understand some of the open issues like some of the transitions
that are being discussed, potential changes in the state's Asian
relationship, how the state wants to be involved in the project
and how that may impact the resources available to the project
and how it might impact the skills available to the project.
They can test how new risks can be mitigated and understand very
clearly how to the actual offtake locations will be built. The
AGDC has done a lot of work on this using everything outside of
the main distribution as part of their mandate. They want to
know how that would work, so the offtakes are in the right place
and the hydraulic model can be validated.
He said they want to make sure the project design elements -
pipeline size, route and plant site - are to everyone's
satisfaction. They don't want to waste resources by having to
switch routes. Alignment among the parties is needed on the
fundamental design issues. In addition, they want to make sure
they have complete support from the administration's 45-day
review team to their satisfaction. They will be positioned for a
FEED decision when the open issues are resolved.
3:52:26 PM
As Mr. Butt mentioned earlier, the project's pace and spend must
be matched to all these other open issues so that when the work
is ready to go across the gate it's in the right place. Does it
have viable technical options, does it have government support,
are permits and land uses achievable; is there potential
commercial viability at a level that all of the parties are
comfortable with? The parties and the citizens of Alaska will
have to decide, under SB 138, if they want to continue investing
25 percent of the money required to move to the next level;
that's $1 billion to $1.5 billion,.
3:55:50 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked him to talk about employment of Alaskans
right now in the project.
MR. BUTT said about 200 people are working on the field work,
about 30-40 doing the geo-technical work; and several hundred
people are providing logistical support (ASRC). Hundreds of
people are coming up to support that work.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she knew the State of Alaska was trying to do
its part to have a prepared workforce. She thanked Mr. Butt for
the presentation.
3:58:40 PM
At ease from 3:58 to 4:03 p.m.
^AKLNG Fiscal Team Update
AKLNG Fiscal Team Update
4:03:12 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the meeting back to order and announced the
AKLNG fiscal team update as the next order of business.
4:04:35 PM
DAVID VAN TUYL, Regional Manager, BP Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska,
said he had been working for BP for almost 31 years, the last
half of that on the Alaska gas project. He is now working on the
Joint Fiscal Team and Management Committee of the AKLNG Project.
He is pleased to be in Nikiski, the site of the future
liquefaction facility. The success of this project is critical
to BP's business here in Alaska, he said, and also critical to
the future of the State of Alaska, itself, and for so many
Alaskans who will benefit directly and indirectly from a
successful project.
He said the project recently took a very important step forward
in receiving export authorization for non-trade countries from
the U.S. Department of Energy. It's a big deal. The project
would not be a success without that approval. The relative speed
with which that approval was obtained also shows how important
the project is on the U.S. federal level. That approval sends an
important message to the world that the AKLNG Project is real
and is coming; the project is building momentum.
MR. VAN TUYL said there is much to be done, but they continue to
make progress. Since the early days of the Walker Administration
all partners had worked productively with his team and they will
continue doing that. They remain actively engaged on a variety
of fronts to continue to progress the project and the associated
commercial work members will hear about shortly.
He concluded that last year they started on this journey
together; project momentum is continuing. BP looks forward to
continuing this journey together in the coming months. He
thanked them and turned the presentation over to Mr. McMahon.
4:07:44 PM
BILL MCMAHON, Senior Commercial Advisor, ExxonMobil, said he had
been working for ExxonMobil for more than 33 years. The last 23
of those year he had been focused on Alaska gas development. He
said Alaska continues to be a very important part of
ExxonMobil's worldwide portfolio; they had been in Alaska for
more than 50 years and had invested more than $13 billion.
ExxonMobil is committed to Alaska and continues to actively
pursue investment opportunities there. As operator at Point
Thomson, ExxonMobil was pleased to reach the settlement
agreement back in 2012 that allowed that project to move forward
for development and allowed the AKLNG Project. Since that time,
they had been moving quickly to get the initial production
system running. It is scheduled to start up either late this
year or early next year, well before their commitment in the
settlement.
As the largest working partner at Prudhoe Bay and the largest
lease holder of discovered natural in Alaska, ExxonMobil has
serious commitments to the AKLNG Project. ExxonMobil has been
involved with all past gas commercialization efforts and is
excited by the promise of AKLNG and is working diligently toward
the next major milestone. Today he would review their progress
and remaining key challenges.
4:10:26 PM
DARREN MEZNARICH, Project Integration Manager of AKLNG,
ConocoPhillips, Anchorage, Alaska, said he had been with the
company for 25 years. He said ConocoPhillips is working hard
with the administration and the other parties on technical work
and the necessary commercial and fiscal agreements and are ready
to move to the next phase. He said ConocoPhillips testified in
February that the most important commercial agreement throughout
is the gas supply agreement. It is foundational for a project of
this scale and size. It's the basis for determining the rate and
the volume of gas between Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson and what
happens if volumes are not supplied. This agreement is key for
ConocoPhillips in a special session. It is crucial to agree on
them now so the project has a solid commercial foundation, which
the legislature can consider additional fiscal and project
enabling legislation on. He is encouraged by the state's support
of the project and the governor's accessibility and engagement.
The governor's team brings important LNG expertise and
experience to the project.
VINCENT LEE, Director, Major Projects Development, TransCanada,
testified but due to technical difficulties it wasn't clear
enough to summarize.
4:14:20 PM
DAN FAUSKE, President, Alaska Gas Development Corporation
(AGDC), Anchorage, Alaska, said it continues to be a pleasure
working with state agencies on AKLNG team. He said they continue
to do work on the Alaska Stand Alone Project (ASAP), but it's
all geotechnical or environmental work that benefits the other
project.
4:15:56 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE said he tries to understand the dynamics between
the two groups and asked if there is a schism between their
philosophies.
MR. McMAHON answered that he would show slides about how
integrated they are.
4:16:59 PM
MR. McMAHON went to slide 2 that introduced the term "sponsor
group" that has all seven parties that have an interest in AKLNG
Project: the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the
Department of Revenue (DOR) from the governor's office; AGDC as
the state's representative making the investments in the pre-
FEED stage of the project, TransCanada; and ExxonMobil, BP and
ConocoPhillips who hold the rights for the natural gas in
Prudhoe Bay. All are concerned with progressing the project. In
addition to what Mr. Butt talked about, the project team is
interested in the ongoing commercial and fiscal work.
FERC and NEPA applicants are the same group of folks; the
administration is not a formal applicant but it has very heavy
consultation involvement, because FERC is very interested in
where the State of Alaska stands on these applications. The
critical issue is the EIS that will allow the project to turn
earth and start construction.
The third box on the slide indicated the five joint interest
parties that signed the agreement governing pre-FEED activities.
The DOE export license work was all done under the name of the
AKLNG Project, LLC. The terms of that agreement allow for the
addition of parties. So they anticipate that the state would put
a representative into the LLC with some kind of connection with
the state royalty in kind election.
MR. MCMAHON said slide 3 summarizes the 7 parties having
interest in pre-FEED, and highlights activities and deliverables
with a target completion by year end. He used the chart to
remind people of what is inside and outside the project.
4:24:27 PM
MR. McMAHON said slide 3 showed everything Mr. Butt said on one
page. It showed the seven parties that have a vested interest in
moving this project forward and good progress is being made
towards completing the pre-FEED deliverables. One of the key
things was passing the bill that grants right-of-ways through
state parks. Mr. Butt has been targeting completion of this work
by year-end, so owner reviews can happen after that.
The circle on slide 4 reminds folks of what is in the project
and what is outside the project. Everything in the circle is
officially part of AKLNG: the two transmission lines to connect
two fields into the gas treatment plant (GTP), the GTP gets gas
to a quality so that it can be turned into a liquid, the
pipeline that goes across the state and the LNG plant, storage
and loading in Nikiski.
Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson are outside the box but central to
the project, and the owners of those two units are working
closely to get natural gas flowing. Another box outside the
circle represented in-state gas supply, a priority for the
project. So, they will work with the administration and AGDC to
find out where those offtakes will be. The sponsors have a wide
span of interests in activities beyond just the project team in:
gas production, commercial, fiscal, regulatory, external affairs
and government relations. Work in each of those areas will need
to be completed in sync with all the other paths. The sponsors
don't discuss individual efforts to monetize the gas.
For gas production the main thing to update is first in the
Point Thompson Unit (PTU) area where 75-80 percent of the
initial production system is going to be able to be reused for
gas expansion. More reservoir data can be collected as the field
gets up and running. As that moves forward, it will provide a
good oil and gas expansion foundation.
The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) has been
having regular interactions the Point Thomson owners about the
gas offtakes and hope to be in a position next month to begin
the formal application for them. At the same time, the Prudhoe
Bay owners are actively working on getting ready for gas sales
and have had successful technical workshops with AOGCC and will
be submitting a formal request soon.
He presented a gas production visual that charted upstream
working interests, producer share and working interests,
producer and state shares after royalty and after royalty and
production tax divided up by PBU and PTU. The ultimate split of
the two different fields is subject to the gas supply and the
regulatory authorizations. He explained that if the State of
Alaska (SOA) would take royalty in kind it would receive about
13 percent of the natural gas coming out of the project and
producers/partners would take less. Under the SB 138 construct,
if the state takes RIK and tax as gas (TAG) the state would then
control around 25 percent of the gas and the producer shares
would shrink.
4:28:48 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked how he assumed 13 percent of royalty in
kind and 25 percent with RIK and TAG.
MR. McMAHON explained that the royalty percentages are defined
in their lease agreements and the increase for tax as gas is
based on SB 138 that set 13 percent as the production tax for
natural gas for this project.
4:29:45 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said they know that as a state there are things
the partners are waiting for like the RIK and TAG
determinations. But he is working on a gas balancing agreement
now amongst the parties and asked if the state is part of the
discussion and how that is progressing.
MR. McMAHON answered that they are progressing and he has a
chart coming up about it.
4:30:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the Point Thomson distribution was
based on the amount of investment each company has in that field
and asked if the state has additional investment through any
creditor being paid for work on the PTU and if that would be
reflected in royalty or the production tax.
MR. McMAHON answered that the participation at Point Thomson is
governed by their lease agreements. So, ExxonMobil pays about 62
percent of the costs, BP pays about 32 percent of the costs, and
ConocoPhillips pays about 5 percent of the costs; there is no
state participation in Point Thomson. The state participation
the chart talks about focuses on the AKLNG Project.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if tax credits were taken for the
development of the Point Thomson Unit if the tax credits were
considered as an investment by the state.
4:33:49 PM
MR. MCMAHON answered that Point Thomson has lease expenditures
that do qualify for tax credits under SB 21, but he didn't have
that information with him.
4:34:05 PM
He said once lease modifications under SB 138 are drafted,
applications will be submitted to DNR. They address royalty-in-
kind (RIK) and royalty-in-value (RIV) switching and limit it to
a particular period in time. Right now the State of Alaska has
the right to switch back and forth, but that would be
inconsistent with this project having stability over a period of
time. Also, Point Thomson has a sliding scale royalty (SSR) as
well as net profit sharing (NPS) leases. SB 138 envisioned that
it be Point Thomson owners unless DNR can come to terms that
those variable leases can be converted into a fixed percentage
to increase the state's gas share of participation in the
project.
SENATOR COGHILL asked what timeframe he was talking about.
MR. MCMAHON's answer was indiscernible.
MR. MCMAHON said a large amount of work was going into
developing the commercial basins for the venture and the
foundation agreements need to be sufficiently completed before
fiscal action can be taken by the legislature over moving into
FEED.
The first area they are working on is the governor's long term
venture including how the facilities would be expanded. Just
like a negotiated agreement governed their pre-FEED activities,
they are in the process of negotiating an agreement that would
govern FEED, engineering, procurement and construction as well
as long term operations. They are also developing agreements on
how gas will be supplied to the project, of particular
importance to the state because under the construct if the state
takes RIK and producers elect TAG, then the state will need to
know how they will lift that 25 percent of gas out of the fields
into the project. Also, since gas will be coming from two
different fields, those commercial agreements will govern how
those fields produce it.
A third area of importance is to understand how people can take
gas off the project to supply to Alaskans as well as lifting the
LNG from the loading docks onto ships. They are also working
mostly with the State Gas Team on agreements around in-state gas
and other agreements until they get to the point of justifying
legislative action on fiscals.
4:39:33 PM
A Long Term Firm Transportation Services Agreement (FTSA)
between the state and TransCanada needs to be worked out.
Depending on who the parties are, some of the agreements will
require legislative review.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she felt that the timeline for a special
session on these issues was getting tight, around the end of
October. There is also a 90 day public notice for their review.
She asked how he felt about that.
MR. McMAHON responded from ExxonMobil's perspective they are
making good progress. The way you get to agreements is to start
with terms. It is a daunting task, but they are making progress.
MR. VAN TUYL agreed that it is daunting, but BP is encouraged
that separate independent teams working are on different aspects
of the project.
MR. MEZNARICH said they had hoped to be further along, but the
work is challenging.
4:43:32 PM
MR. LEE said that TransCanada was not at liberty to discuss
details, but could say that the administration had informally
approached TransCanada about taking steps to terminate its
relationship with the State of Alaska.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she appreciated his comments. The governor
had indicated his desire to go it alone on the pipeline and the
legislative consultants had outlined what that cash call would
entail.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON noted that earlier Mr. Lee had stated that
a termination notice had not been received by TransCanada and
asked if the governor had asked for any information about a
termination process.
MR. LEE's said that this question was better directed to the
administration, but that the choice was entirely within the
purview of the State of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if this is a good time for the
governor to negotiate this.
MR. LEE's answer was indiscernible.
4:48:38 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL reminded folks that termination criteria was
spelled out in Appendix C on pages 8 and 9 of the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with a deadline for entering into the FTSA
of September 31, 2015. If the state decides to go it alone and
not enter that FTSA, it would owe TransCanada the amount of
investment they have made up to this point plus 7.1 percent
interest, which the governor's office has estimated to be $108
million.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked if the legislature was supposed to focus
on fiscal terms or legislation on the right-of-ways this year.
MR. McMAHON answered that the first issue would be legislation
on flow-related property tax and payments during construction;
next would be a review and ratification of any fiscal contract
agreed to by the partners and the state of Alaska; finally, many
of the commercial agreements require legislative review and
approval.
4:51:18 PM
MR. FAUSKE said the gas balancing agreement is also key, because
without it there is no project. O
-CHAIR JOSEPHSON
4:52:19 PM
MR. MEZNARICH added that gas supply and the fiscal terms, things
laid out in the Heads of Agreement (HOA) roadmap, are also key.
MR. VAN TUYL commented that a royalty-in-kind election was under
the purview of the administration. That underpins the basic
structure of the gasline and enables the alignment everyone has
been talking about.
CHAIR GIESSEL remarked that the legislature will not have any
review of the RIK issue; it will be under the DNR commissioner's
review.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if he thought the administration was
creating obstacles to an acceptable timeline or improving
relationships. Does the administration have the potential to
derail this very important project or will improvements keep
everyone on schedule this year?
MR. VAN TUYL replied that BP is using the roadmap in SB 138 and
a key thing that underpins that is commercial alignment. The
administration is absolutely interested in this project and BP's
preference is to continue maturing the relationships addressed
in SB 138.
4:57:19 PM
MR. MEZNARICH recognized that the administration has good
constructive proposals and brings a sense of urgency to the
project.
4:57:56 PM
MR. McMAHON said this is all about putting together predictable
and durable fiscal terms for a project that is of unprecedented
scale. It is important to LNG buyers, lenders and investors and
the administration recognizes this. They are in a dialogue with
the administration about the mechanism for financing and
property taxes.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked if he had looked at the possibility of
needing a constitutional amendment for the fiscal terms.
MR. VAN TUYL answered that he is not an attorney and that BP is
sufficiently confident about fiscal stability to have spent
hundreds of millions on the project.
5:02:21 PM
MR. FAUSKE said he isn't an attorney either, but a
constitutional amendment would be another benchmark that
requires a general election, which moves the project out another
year. He wasn't sure if it would be required or not. They must
keep in mind to not be too cautious because the market could
just leave them "sitting in the wake."
SENATOR COGHILL's asked what was different about a standard
royalty contract and the election of the state in a contract to
take its royalty in gas. Had the parties thought that through?
MR. McMAHON's answer they have thought that through, and that
the terms of the lease agreement, and the added protection of SB
138, there was sufficient grounds to contract that. That was
also why limiting the ability of the state of Alaska to switch
between royalty-in-kind (RIK) and royalty-in-value (RIV) leases
is so important to the project.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the state had ever unilaterally gone in
and changed royalty agreements.
MR. McMAHON answered not to his knowledge.
SENATOR COGHILL's next question was indiscernible.
CHAIR GIESSEL said that was a good point and invited Mr. Fauske
to answer the question on competition.
MR. FAUSKE said he would let AGDC council answer that.
5:07:53 PM
KEN VASSAR, Council, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
(AGDC), explained that the constitutional question is if one
legislature can bind subsequent legislatures in terms of taxes.
Taxes are in a different situation than royalties and he thought
a constitutional amendment would be needed. The state receives
royalties, but that is not considered taxes.
SENATOR MACKINNON asked how long a constitutional vote would
delay the project.
5:10:15 PM
MR. McMAHON answered that would need to be talked through with
the administration and the first time a vote could happen is in
the next general election in 2016. A critical path for this
project is continuing the work with FERC. As long as work on
that continues, the startup date won't be impacted.
MR. MEZNARICH commented that the constitutional issue would not
get in the way of the timeline.
5:15:52 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he thought the original plan was for the
state to take its gas to market and asked how that affects the
tax.
MR. McMAHON said that is still the plan (state taking RIK and
producers paying their TAG). SB 138 contained the obligation for
each producer to make a proposal to the State of Alaska to
either purchase or market its share of the state's gas.
5:17:34 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if there would still be a constitutional
question if the state chose to continue on with the HOA with gas
that is marketed and get the value for it when whoever buys it
pays for it.
MR. McMAHON said the constitutional challenge is that there are
other taxes out there like property tax and can the state
provide certainty on those.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that Alaskans are averse to changing their
constitution, but have also been unpredictable in changing their
tax regime. Have the companies planned the two scenarios: one if
the constitutional vote fails, the other if it is successful?
MR. McMAHON answered that one of the challenges of having a
public vote on a constitutional amendment is if the people give
a solid answer. It's difficult to imagine them saying no.
MR. VAN TUYL remarked that that was a hypothetical question and
answer. Offering it in the abstract might be difficult for
voters to get their mind around. The rest of his answer was
[indiscernible].
MR. FAUSKE suggested not raising taxes during the time of loan
payback if the length of payback is shortened, because you can't
guarantee an investor a timeframe that meets with their
investment parameters.
5:24:02 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE remarked that the legislature decoupled oil and
gas two years earlier. Now there is talk about fiscal certainty
on the topic of gas taxes. But what would happen if there was a
move to revisit oil taxes?
MR. McMAHON said he touched on one of the two key parameters
that will have to be agreed to in any fiscal contract. The first
is to think of is how long the terms will be predictable and the
other is the breadth of predictability (what taxes are cut). His
answer to either one is that it depends on the entire
[indiscernible]. Having protection on the gas business by having
the oil business exposed would have to be factored into whatever
the gas terms are.
5:26:16 PM
MR. McMAHON continued with his update. He said the DOE export
authorizations have been received and good progress has been
made on the NEPA pre-file. Their strategy is to submit two
drafts to the FERC before doing the final submission. The first
draft went in on February of this year and the second draft will
go in February 2016. One of the key things that will support
that is public comment. Last year they hosted about 60 public
comment events and they have more than 60 planned for this fall.
It is critical to maintain the FERC docket so that the export
license remains valid, and it's critical to push on through the
NEPA pre-file process to get the EIS permit that allows them to
turn dirt.
Finally, the External Affairs and Government Relations Team is
all about the public image of this project, which cannot proceed
without broad public support. They are busy facilitating
meaningful community engagement.
5:29:13 PM
Given the magnitude of the legislative ratification step, it's
essential that participants are aligned and time be taken to
complete all the deliverables needed for a FEED decision.
MR. MCMAHON said the remaining challenges are: establishing the
role of the state as project participant in terms of lease
modifications and RIK election, timely completion of fiscal and
key commercial contracts, legislation for property taxes
including a flow-related property tax mechanism after startup
and impact payments during construction and legislation to
provide durable predictable fiscal terms.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if he could comment on a letter from
the governor's office saying they identified a lack of urgency
in resolving some of the issues listed.
MR. VAN TUYL replied they had signed a confidentiality agreement
with seven parties that requires them to keep certain
information confidential.
MR. MEZNARICH said a number of different work streams are moving
forward in parallel and that progress is being made on each
front.
5:35:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON went back to the tax issue and the
proposed constitutional amendment. Some people would ask why the
state would relinquish this sovereign authority, but others
could be educated that this is a different kind of contract, a
long term supply contract.
MR. McMAHON said if the constitutional amendment approach is
chosen, it would be critical to have the contracts effective by
a successful vote of the people. The people would need to see
progress before the vote.
^State Gas Team Update
State Gas Team Update
5:40:34 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the State Gas Team update.
AUDIE SETTERS, General Manager, State Gas Team, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), provided his background which was
working for Chevron, mostly overseas. His experience was all
along the value chain. He was indirectly involved in developing
Chevron's LNG business when it merged with Texaco. They embarked
on a strategy to build three big gas projects, two in Australia
and one in Angola. It was a successful strategy.
MR. SETTERS said he was hired by the Parnell Administration in
September to help on the LNG marketing. The State's Gas Team is
organized under the Office of the Governor and consists of: the
Department of Revenue, Department of Natural Resources, himself
as general manager, the Department of Law and the AGDC.
CHAIR GIESSEL said the chart had only his name and no other
names for the other headings.
5:48:02 PM
MR. SETTERS said everyone in the organization is still there,
but they are going through a transition that will bring
organizations together into one team.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked how many people are still there and what
roles they have.
MR. SETTERS said Marty Rutherford is still there, but the
Governor thought someone with more global experience would be
better, and Ms. Rutherford is supportive of that. He said the
State of Alaska's stakeholders are many; there are potential
lenders, the legislature and Alaskans.
He said that coming to a new organization he felt it was
important to define what success looks like. It's "One Team"
that has clearly defined roles and responsibilities, is
streamlined and empowers negotiating teams with clear authority
to negotiate the suite of agreements that are needed and obtain
stakeholder agreement to enter FEED in 2016. The organization
will encourage the training and development of Alaskan residents
for jobs related to the AKLNG Project. His role in this project
is not necessarily to fish but to help teach the state how to
fish. He made that clear to the Parnell Administration and to
Governor Walker who supports him wholeheartedly.
5:52:41 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said she wanted to know who the people on the Team
are and asked him how much money was being spent on the State
Gas Team.
MR. SETTERS agreed to get that information.
5:54:15 PM
MR. SETTERS said the immediate priorities are:
-Align stakeholders;
-Consolidate and integrate the various project stakeholders
involved in negotiations and the decision process;
-Establish processes to ensure state negotiating teams are armed
with a clear authority to negotiate;
-Negotiate the suite of agreements required to support a
legislative special session in the fall of 2015, which will
enable a FEED decision in 2016;
-Develop commercial agreements and economic analysis that will
inform the RIK vs. RIV determination by the DNR commissioner;
(Marty Rutherford's team is helping make the RIK vs. RIV
determination and commercial agreements need to be developed to
define how risks are mitigated under the RIK decision)
-Build the LNG marketing organization required to promote market
awareness around AKLNG and support its marketing requirements.
Uniquely, the state has very strong partners who have a long
history in the state in the LNG business and who are loyal and
want to expand their relationship with the state.
5:56:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked what his biggest surprise and
biggest disappointment were after his first day on the job.
MR. SETTERS replied that his biggest surprise was how strong the
brand was and how the market reacted to AKLNG. After meetings
last year, he was amazed at how excited the market was.
Initially, he was a little bit frustrated by the progress of the
project.
CHAIR GIESSEL said he indicated a dilemma in the choice between
RIK and RIV and remarked that the state won't need a marketing
organization if it takes its royalty in kind.
MR. SETTERS replied that they are planning for success. SB 138
describes the base case as RIK, but they need to build a case
for RIK and that means understanding how this project would be
received in the market. One thing the state doesn't want to do
is waste people's time if it doesn't have anything to sell. He
wants to be able to provide the legislature some kind of
assessment on how the market perceives the project in the fall
special session.
6:01:06 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL talked about her reading of the statute.
SENATOR MICCICHE's asked how the state was taking advantage of
the joint venture structure of the project.
MR. SETTERS said there were many opportunities for Alaskans to
take advantage of marketing the gas, whether it was equity
marketing or joint venture marketing. There is flexibility, but
a joint venture marketing position allows the state to combine
the marketability of that gas.
SENATOR MICCICHE opined that the state has an obligation to the
people of the state to market its gas as best as possible.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI's question and Mr. Setters' follow-up:
[indiscernible]. Mr. Setters mentioned that the intent of the
governor's letter was well received by the producers and helped
some of the alignment and the senses of urgency.
6:08:02 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE asked the role of the Permanent Fund in
financing this project.
MR. SETTERS answered that it is his second week on the job, but
he didn't understand how it could be used. [Discussion was
indiscernible.]
6:10:18 PM
RANDALL HOFFBECK, Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR),
Anchorage, Alaska, answered the Permanent Fund question by
saying its use was being determined. State savings would have to
be used as part of its investment. There have been discussions
around whether this should be a good investment for a percentage
of the Permanent Fund.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked if he was envisioning going through the
portfolio as a trustee's presentation or through the legislative
process.
MR. HOFFBECK answered that it could occur either way. Investing
early would probably be a legislative decision.
SENATOR STOLTZE [indiscernible] question about funding the
project.
MR. SETTERS said TransCanada's share is $108 million for
reimbursable pre-FEED costs. One thing is sure; they don't want
to impact the quality of the work that is coming out of the
AKLNG Team. They also want to keep up a good long-term working
relationship with TransCanada, because it is an excellent
company.
CHAIR GIESSEL said the $108 million is only the immediate
number, all the consultants have indicated the risks of ongoing
cash calls.
MR. SETTERS answered that she was right and the state would have
to carry its 25 percent working interest through FEED and
ultimately through the project. Terms are associated with it;
so, it's not just spending more money. It also leads to higher
revenues.
6:18:42 PM
DONA KEPPERS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR),
Anchorage, Alaska, said she works with Audie Setters as part of
the State Gas Team; she is the bridge between the gas team from
the previous administration to this one. She became deputy
commissioner with the administration change. She provided more
background, but it was indiscernible.
6:20:51 PM
RANDALL HOFFBECK, Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR),
said he came up with a simplified formula for evaluating the
AKLNG Project that is robust and predictable. [Some of his
testimony was indiscernible, but can be found on slide 11 of his
presentation.] The property tax issue was discussed.
6:27:20 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE mentioned the constitutional amendment and
decoupling issues.
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK replied that he was not involved in the
writing of that and couldn't comment.
6:28:19 PM
MR. SETTERS said he has a legal background on this issue and
what they are trying to do is create an incentive to build a gas
project. [Discussion indiscernible.]
SENATOR MACKINNON asked if they were considering a version of
the property tax agreement, maybe around November.
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK answered yes.
6:32:06 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE asked what Rigdon Boykin's role is.
MR. SETTERS answered that he is responsible for the 45-day
review, making sure that opportunities for progress are
identified and creative solutions are found. He is also
identifying any issues that may create a problem for the project
down the road. The 45-days was supposed to start at the end of
the regular session, but it was delayed a little bit and is
about half way done. A full report will be made available to the
legislature.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked what Mr. Boykin's background is.
MR. SETTERS replied that he had a chance to work with him for
about a month and found him to be extremely creative individual
who is also an attorney. He has had 20 years of direct
experience with projects in Alaska and in putting very
complicated deals together. He is a very positive force in terms
of getting people to think outside the box and in breaking the
logjams in the negotiations. He was involved in the Port
Authority, for one thing.
6:34:38 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked about Radoslov Shipkoff's role in the
project.
MR. SETTERS said he is with Greengate, LLC, based in Washington,
D.C., whose specialty is in project financing. Being able to
look at the project through the eyes of lenders is very helpful
in helping understand the pitfalls. Mr. Shipkoff would
facilitate timely review of the project.
CHAIR GIESSEL said it sounds like this is another person from
out of state.
MR. SETTERS answered yes, but Radoslov has probably looked at
every LNG project in the world. He brings a fresh set of eyes
and an understanding of what it takes to get these projects
going.
CHAIR GIESSEL said you can't argue with having someone with the
state who has experience and expertise.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wanted to make sure that they look
at Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's (LB&A) consultant
Rick Harper's paper that analyzed the HOA and all of the fiscal
proposals so that those questions could brought forward and
answered in the analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON's question and Mr. Setters' answer was
indiscernible.
6:38:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if he is aware that Mr. Shipkoff had
worked at the old Port Authority.
MR. SETTERS answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked him to pass on this question to the
governor and asked if it is possible that leadership in both
houses, the co-chairs of the Finance and Resources Committees
could get a preliminary review of the 45-day report before it
goes final.
MR. SETTERS said he would pass that on.
^AKLNG Impacts to the Kenai Peninsula Borough
AKLNG Update on Impacts to the Kenai Peninsula Borough
6:40:18 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL invited Larry Persily to give an update on the
impacts of the AKLNG Project to the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
6:40:26 PM
LARRY PERSILY, Oil and Gas Advisor, Kenai Peninsula Borough,
said he had worked on this project for 15 years as a state
official, as a federal official, and now as a municipal
official. he expected half the value of this project would be in
the Kenai Peninsula Borough boundaries and would consist of a
liquefaction plant, marine terminals, storage tanks, almost 30
miles of pipe on the bottom of Cook Inlet and more miles on the
west and east sides of Cook Inlet.
Five main issues the Kenai Peninsula Borough is working on:
1. The FERC EIS process is the appropriate avenue for the
borough or other municipalities to address the socio economic
issues. FERC in issuing an order for an LNG plant can include
mitigation measures.
2. The potential relocation of Kenai Spur Highway for safety and
security reasons to go around the pipe site would be the most
immediate change in the community
3. Fiscal uncertainty can be harmful for a project like this and
they are trying their best working with AKLNG to answer
questions and keeping the public them informed
4. Ensure receipt of fair value for borough land
5. Work with the state and municipalities to achieve adequate
impact aid during construction and payment in lieu of property
taxes after start-up.
6:43:50 PM
MR. PERSILY said the next round of draft reports for the
Environmental Impact Statement will fill in more details on not
just the baseline - how much traffic is on the road - but how
much traffic will be on the road during and after this
construction and some possible mitigation measures. This is a
major concern particularly in the Nikiski/Kenai/Soldotna
corridor where it's very busy or is only one road and a couple
of lanes sometimes. The Kenai airport and emergency services
will have to be expanded.
He said the project is undertaking a labor supply and demand
study and a logistics study - what ports and what potential
points to bring in materials and workers. There is a potential
site for the Kenai Spur Highway relocation as it wouldn't be
good for the highway to go through a work zone.
He said local residents' concerns are what one would expect for
a project of this size. But people want answers to specifics
that just don't exist yet, like where the work camp will be and
work hours, how many people will be there and how will they get
from the work camp to the job site. More information on that
will come later. Noise and traffic, property values - some
people are in the area and wished they had been bought out;
others are happy with being there - are all issues.
MR. PERSILY said that increased pressure on sport fishing in the
Kenai is also a big concern. Employers are worried that wage
inflation will make it hard to hold onto workers.
The better job the project does of getting accurate information
out there and the better job municipalities and local
governments do in the process will help gain public acceptance
and avoid or lessen surprises and conflicts later on.
MR. PERSILY said they are reaching out to AKLNG to ensure that
whatever property is needed from the borough is transferred in a
timely fashion so it doesn't delay the project.
He said the borough is also looking at future growth
opportunities after the project is operating, making sure there
are lands available for housing or economic opportunity in the
area.
MR. PERSILY explained that there are two pieces to the property
tax issue: the impact aid during construction making the
municipalities whole and then coming up with a formula for a
payment in lieu of property taxes (PILT) during operation. They
have been asked to come up with some estimates for the impact
aid during construction - from airport accommodations, highways,
police, fire, emergency services, social services - but it's a
little hard because they don't have all the data - how many
workers and work camps, non-resident, residents - yet. But they
will come up with something that will probably be on the high
side, because it is not precise.
He said the borough understands that impact aid is intended to
make the municipalities whole; it is not a profit center or
windfall. The big questions are not only how much will go into
the account but how it will come back out. A grant process has
been talked about in the advisory group. Who will make the
decisions? What if the DCCED makes a decision the borough
doesn't like? Can it be appealed? Will the money be spent and
then be reimbursed or can it be requested in advance of
spending?
In terms of payment in lieu of tax (PILT) during operation, Mr.
Persily said that a volume-driven formula makes sense rather
than battling for 30 years as happened on the Trans Alaska oil
pipeline (TAPS). To come up with the value of a 40 foot section
of steel pipe coated with concrete sitting at the bottom or Cook
Inlet you would look for three comps but where would they come
from? And a formula would give some certainty to the project
developers. If .20 mils is used for the entire project, that
would equate to close to $1/per thousand cubic feet. Looking at
economics, that's a pretty heavy burden. The LNG plant alone
would more than triple the total assessed value in the borough.
Kind of like during impact aid, you look at that and say well
the borough probably doesn't need three times as much money as
in the past, but what does it need and what is fair? What can
the project afford in a competitive environment? Once the
formula is set, how it gets shared between the different
municipalities - the North Slope Borough, Fairbanks, Denali,
Mat-Su, Anchorage and Kenai - will be another challenge,
although it won't be the companies' problem.
How the six municipalities debate the distribution of PILT will
be another issue. Will there be one PILT for the gas treatment
plant that is entirely in the North Slope Borough, one PILT
formula for the LNG plant which is entirely in the Kenai
Borough, and a separate one for the pipeline that could be
calculated by mileage?
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked Mr. Persily.
6:56:39 PM
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR GIESSEL adjourned the Senate Resources Committee meeting
at 6:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Joint HRES SRES- AK LNG Project Update-Steve Butt-June-16-2015.pdf |
SRES 6/16/2015 3:00:00 PM |
|
| Joint HRES SRES Larry Persilly Presentation 06-16-2015.pdf |
SRES 6/16/2015 3:00:00 PM |
|
| AKLNG SRES HRES Joint Testimony 06-16-2015 Final.pdf |
SRES 6/16/2015 3:00:00 PM |
|
| Joint HRES SRES- Alaska LNG State Gas Team Project Update 06-16-15.pdf |
SRES 6/16/2015 3:00:00 PM |
Joint HRES SRES- AK LNG State Gas Team Project Update |
| Joint HRESE SRES- DNR Third Party Letter Sec 77 SB 138 Report to the Legislature 06-16-15.pdf |
SRES 6/16/2015 3:00:00 PM |
SB 138 |