Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
01/27/2025 03:30 PM Senate 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): Wood Mackenzie – Economic Viability Assessment and Economic Value of Alaska Lng Project – Phase One | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska Gasline Development Corporation Report | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 2025
3:30 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Matt Claman
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Kelly Merrick
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): WOOD MACKENZIE ECONOMIC VIABILITY ASSESSMENT
AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF ALASKA LNG PROJECT PHASE 1
- HEARD
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPORT
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
FRANK RICHARDS, President
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced the presentation on the Wood
MacKenzie Viability Assessment and Economic Value of Alaska LNG
Project - Phase 1.
COSTA SWIFT, Vice President
Upstream and Carbon Management Consulting Team
Wood MacKenzie
Houston, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the presentation, Wood MacKenzie
Viability Assessment and Economic Value of Alaska LNG Project -
Phase 1.
FRANK RICHARDS, President
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the presentation, Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation Report.
MATT KISSINGER, Senior Principal
New Business Ventures
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the presentation by
the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation Report.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:18 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Myers, Dunbar, Kawasaki, Hughes, Claman, and Chair
Giessel. Senator Wielechowski arrived shortly thereafter.
^PRESENTATION(S): WOOD MACKENZIE ECONOMIC VIABILITY ASSESSMENT
and ECONOMIC VALUE OF ALASKA LNG PROJECT PHASE One
PRESENTATION(S): WOOD MACKENZIE ECONOMIC VIABILITY ASSESSMENT
and ECONOMIC VALUE OF ALASKA LNG PROJECT PHASE One
3:30:55 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the presentation titled Wood MacKenzie,
Economic Viability Assessment and Economic Value of Alaska LNG
Project.
3:31:34 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, President, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC), Anchorage, Alaska introduced the
presentation, Wood MacKenzie Economic Viability Assessment and
Economic Value of Alaska LNG Project - Phase One. He explained
that the Alaska legislature requested an independent third-party
evaluation of Phase One of the Alaska LNG project the prior
year. The study objective was to determine the gross value added
to the state of Alaska should the project proceed.
3:32:27 PM
Technical issues delayed the presentation.
3:33:13 PM
At ease.
3:38:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting. Technical issues
persisted.
3:40:53 PM
At ease.
3:43:06 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting.
3:43:40 PM
COSTA SWIFT, Vice President, Upstream and Carbon Management
Consulting Team, Wood MacKenzie (WM), Houston, Texas, began the
presentation of the Wood MacKenzie Viability Assessment and
Economic Value of Alaska LNG Project - Phase 1 report. He said
the presentation today was a short version of the complete
report.
3:44:55 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 4.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Project Background
Wood Mackenzie has worked extensively as an
independent consultant on Alaska's energy issues since
2016 to provide an economic analysis of the viability
of the cost of supply (CoS) for Alaska LNG (also
referred to as AK LNG). Most recently in 2021/22,
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) engaged
Wood Mackenzie for an updated analysis that included
calculating a new base CoS, identifying opportunities
to optimize the CoS, a competitive analysis and
providing our long-term projections.
3:46:01 PM
MR. SWIFT continued to narrate slide 4.
Since the last study, AGDC has proposed a phased
approach to developing Alaska LNG. Phase 1 involves
developing the gas pipeline from the North Slope to
Southcentral and Interior Alaska markets. As part of
Phase 1, ADGC has engaged Wood Mackenzie for an
independent economic analysis of the proposed gas
pipeline and an economic benefit analysis for the
state of Alaska.
The information on which this independent report is
based has either come from our experience, knowledge
and database or it has been supplied to us by AGDC.
The opinions expressed in this report are those of
Wood Mackenzie. They have been arrived at following
careful consideration and enquiry, but we do not
guarantee their fairness, completeness, or accuracy.
The opinions, as of this date, are subject to change.
Please note that for this engagement, we have adjusted
our standard base case to reflect disclosed asset-
specific information.
This Report is structured across 5 sections:
• Southcentral and Interior Alaska market overview
• Delivered cost of piped gas and scenario analysis
• Analysis of LNG imports as an alternative
• Economic impact of Alaska LNG Phase 1
• Final takeaways and conclusions
3:47:30PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 5. Slide 5 includes two
graphs:
• "Cook Inlet Gas production" depicts the history and the
projected future level of production beginning in 2000 through
2070.
• "Exploration activity in the Cook Inlet Basin" depicts the
results of exploration activities from 2009 through 2023.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Gas supply has been dwindling, and despite exploration
efforts by operators, no new volumes have been
discovered in Cook Inlet to replenish the reserves
• Cook Inlet production is expected to be depleted
by the mid-2030s
• Exploration success in the Cook inlet has been
limited:
• 34 exploration wells drilled in the last 15
years
• 9 percent success rate with only three
commercial discoveries
• 270 bcf of reserves discovered in the last 15
years
3:49:21 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 6, describing two
alternatives to replace the declining production in Cook Inlet.
[Original punctuation provided.]
With Cook Inlet gas production recovery proving to be
a challenge, two main alternatives to addressing the
forecast supply gap are a new gas pipeline and LNG
imports
Gas supply alternatives for Southcentral and Interior
Alaska market
1. Natural gas supply via pipeline
In Phase 1, a 765-mile, 42-inch diameter mainline
pipeline will connect the Southcentral Alaska region
with the northern fields, providing a secure and
affordable gas supply. In the beginning, the pipeline
will supply local and industrial consumption, then
expand to provide feed gas for export into LNG
markets.
Key stats
• Total capex: From US$10.8 billion to US$14.9 billion
for max capacity
• Time to first gas: 2031
• Capacity: 3.3 bcfd at max
• Ability to expand to cover incremental investment in
subsequent LNG phases
3:50:22 PM
MR. SWIFT continued to narrate slide 6.
2. LNG imports1 Gas imports via LNG require regas and
further downstream infrastructure, including an FSRU
dock to take the imported gas and potentially inland
storage for operations optimization across yearly
seasonality.
Key stats
• Total capex: TBD
• Time to first gas: 3 - 4 years post FID2
• Capacity: 400 to 450 mmcfd fit for current demand
without increased industrial activity
• Expected utilization: 40 45 percent
Slide 6 includes two maps illustrating each of the two
alternatives described by the slide.
3:51:25 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted that the capex for "1. Natural gas supply
via pipeline" is estimated to be $10.8 to $14.9 billion. He said
$40 billion has been quoted for around a decade. He asked for
clarification about what "Phase 1" does and does not include.
3:51:57 PM
MR. SWIFT answered that Phase One is only related to the
pipeline itself. It includes the main line of the pipeline and
does not include extra compression, the Cook Inlet and
additional [pipeline] section that would be needed; it does not
include the expansion to Point Thompson or anything related to
the LNG itself. He said Phase 1 was just the main pipeline.
3:52:41 PM
SENATOR MYERS sought to clarify further. He said, to fill the
gap between the $11 billion figure in this presentation to the
$40 billion that has been quoted in the past would include:
• 50-60 miles of pipeline to Point Thompson
• 30-40 miles of pipeline across Cook Inlet
• LNG export plant
3:53:12 PM
MR. SWIFT concurred, though he acknowledged uncertainty about
the $40 billion figure. He said it would also include gas
processing at Cook Inlet for LNG volumes.
3:53:31 PM
SENATOR MYERS commented that the comparison of nearly 800 miles
of pipeline to around 100 miles of pipeline, plus a gas
treatment plant plus a gas compression facility to re-liquefy it
did not quite add up.
3:54:03 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN referred to alternative "2. LNG imports", "Key
Stats" and asked for an explanation of the "Expected
utilization: 40-45 percent."
3:54:33 PM
MR. SWIFT said 40-45 percent references the overall utilization
of the facility. He said, because of the typical nature of
demand, the facility must be built large enough to meet the peak
demand. During the low season, the facility isn't utilized fully
and spare capacity is needed in the facility to be able to take
in more gas during peak seasons.
3:55:13 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked for greater clarification of what was not
included in the estimate for Phase 1. She noted that past
estimates [for an LNG pipeline] by Exxon included a treatment
facility on the North Slope, the pipeline itself and off-takes,
for example to Fairbanks, as well as an export facility on the
[Kenai] Peninsula, which, she surmised, was how they arrived at
$40 billion. She noted that was ten years ago. She observed that
there had been inflation; and she opined that a pipeline all by
itself would not meet the need for gas in southcentral Alaska if
that gas hasn't been treated on the North Slope to make it
consumer ready. She said Fairbanks needed a take-off point from
the pipeline. She asked how the $11 billion would meet the need.
3:56:41 PM
MR. SWIFT said the assumptions that were used from the supply
perspective were that gas would come from the Great Bear
Pantheon field. Part of the modeling was to verify that was
possible at their selling price. He said the cost of processing
and splitting into the upstream fields was included in order to
get the minimum gas required to meet the demand of the
southcentral region.
3:57:14 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked whether Pantheon had gas.
3:57:30 PM
MR. SWIFT affirmed that Pantheon did some flow testing and did
have gas. He described the model Wood MacKenzie (WM) built based
on the publicly available flow test results and according to the
model, which showed an increase in the net present value of the
asset, it would make sense for Pantheon to sell the gas.
3:58:07 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that AGDC had previously negotiated
agreements with Prudhoe Bay and Point Thompson producers. He
asked whether those agreements had expired.
3:58:22 PM
MR. SWIFT said he did not know whether those agreements had
expired and suggested that would be a question for AGDC.
3:58:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether Great Bear Pantheon had
funding to develop its resources.
MR. SWIFT said that was not something WM looked at.
3:58:59 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the agreement with AGDC would
require the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) to accommodate the
design of the [pipeline] system if the Great Bear Pantheon
supply is found to contain CO2.
3:59:15 PM
MR. SWIFT said he was unable to comment on that.
3:59:21 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to the WM cost of supply chart from a
2022 presentation which addressed the price for a pipeline. He
said the cost of supply was noted at $7 MMBtu and the cost of
the pipeline was estimated to be around $12.7 million. He said
the capital costs mentioned in the prior presentation, but not
in the current one were the LNG facility at approximately $6.8
billion and the gas treatment plant on the North slope would be
about $9.2 billion. He asked whether the $40 billion figure may
have come from that presentation.
4:00:11 PM
MR. SWIFT concurred.
4:00:26 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 7.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Four scenarios were developed and analyzed to account
for: existing gas demand (baseload), potential new
demand brought by gas availability, and the
construction of a 20 [million tons per annum] mtpa LNG
facility
Scenario 1: Baseload
This includes the Current State demand for gas in
Southcentral and Interior Alaska. Plus, additional
demand from Fairbanks substitution of oil/wood as gas
becomes available to avoid EPA's nonattainment area
designation and finally, the ramp-up from the Nikiski
Refinery
Components:
Current state (Southcentral + Interior)
+ Fairbanks
+ Nikiski Refinery
Average gas demand ([million cubic feet per day]
mmcfd, 2031-2071)
~190
Scenario 2: WM Case
Baseload plus additional gas demand based on
historical gas demand for the industrial sector and
population growth forecasts. We estimate Industrial
demand will reach 48 mmcfd (32 mmcfd additional to 16
1
mmcfd from the Nikiski Refinery)
Components:
Baseload
+ Additional Industrial Activity
Average gas demand (mmcfd, 2031-2071)
~220
Scenario 3: Additional Industrial demand
This considers the maximum upside from industrial
demand based on high-consuming facilities starting
operations. This incremental gas demand could come
from restarting a previously operating fertilizer
plant, a new ammonia plant (brownfield or greenfield)
or new data centers.
Components:
WM Case
+ High-consuming industrial plant
Average gas demand (mmcfd, 2031-2071)
~320
Scenario 4: Alaska LNG
The 20 mtpa LNG Facility (Alaska LNG) will require an
2
additional 2,844 mmcfd at full capacity. This demand
was added to the WM Case and assumed to come online in
2032 with one 6.7 mtpa train and two more in 2033 and
2034, respectively
Components:
WM Case
3
+ Alaska LNG
Average gas demand (mmcfd, 2031-2071)
~2,930
Source: Wood Mackenzie 1. In 2001 industrial demand
reached 185 mmcfd with industrial activity and
population at 632,716. Even though population is
expected to peak in 2033, WM expects enough
demographic base to support increased demand back to
historic levels via additional uses of natural gas 2.
Feedgas estimation considers 7.11 percent Liquefaction
Loss, 1.56percent Transport Loss, and 52,000,000
mmbtu/mt and 1,090 [british thermal unit per standard
cubic foot] Btu/scf conversions. 3. Additional average
demand is 2,705 for the 40 years due to phased kick-
off of one train per year.
4:02:25 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 8, continuing the
comparison of the four model scenarios, specifically comparing
the projected costs for each scenario. Slide 8 also contains a
map illustrating the route of the proposed AK LNG gasline
mainline, the Point Thompson Transmission Line and the Cook
Inlet Crossing
[Original punctuation provided.]
Costs in the first three scenarios account for minimum
compression capacity but with Alaska LNG, the cost for
compression and a segment to cross Cook Inlet is also
considered
Alaska LNG Pipeline capex by scenario
Real 2024 US$ million
[Slide 8 presents the following information in a table
format.]
Baseload Scenario
Capex / Scenarios (2024 US$ million):
1
Phase 1 mainline $10,769
Total Amount $10,769
WM Case
Capex / Scenarios (2024 US$ million):
1
Phase 1 mainline $10,769
Total Amount $10,769
Additional Industrial demand
Capex / Scenarios (2024 US$ million):
1
Phase 1 mainline $10,769
Total Amount $10,769
Alaska LNG
Capex / Scenarios (2024 US$ million):
1
Phase 1 mainline $10,769
Compression $2,485
Cook Inlet + Additional Section $1,131
2
Point Thompson Expansion $564 N.A.
Total Amount $14,385
[Baseload Scenario, Phase 1 mainline $10,769 million]
• In-state gas demand is burden only by Phase 1 Capex
• Additional cost is considered only for LNG volumes
coming online
Source: Wood Mackenzie with information from AGDC
1. Considers 20 percent Contingency and US$50 million
of Property Taxes
2. Alaska LNG Scenario does not consider the Point
Thompson Expansion cost. In order not to affect the
rest of the shippers it must be considered as part of
the purchase gas cost for the LNG facility only.
4:03:40 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 9, consisting of a graph
comparing the four scenarios' projected pipeline capital
expenditures (Capex) and the delivered cost of Gas [price to
consumer] from the year 2031 through 2071.
[Original punctuation provided.]
The scenario analysis shows an asymmetrical impact on
the delivered cost of gas from a change in demand
accruing to the consumers' benefit
[Slide 9 consists of a graph comparing the four
scenarios' projected pipeline capital expenditures
(Capex) and the delivered cost of Gas [price to
consumer] from the year 2031 through 2071.]
4:04:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL commented that there are decades between 2031 and
2071 and she opined that the figures may not account for
inflation over that period. She said she wouldn't bank on [a
consumer price] of $2.32, but said it was a nice idea.
4:05:15 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 10. Slide 10 contains a
table and a tornado chart demonstrating WM's finding:
"Additional sensitivities showed that securing a Federal Loan
Guarantee and reducing Property Tax have the most impact on the
cost of gas."
MR. SWIFT explained that the left side of the table listed the
different sensitivities tested, including debt-to-equity ratios,
federal loan guarantees, borrowing rates, return on equity,
property tax, project life, gas cost, Capex, and supply point
and the right side of the table visualized the impact of these
sensitivities via tornado chart. He pointed out that the two
most significant sensitivities affecting the cost [of gas] are
the federal loan guarantee and property tax.
4:07:10 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 11. He noted that the
presentation had focused on the gas supply from the northern
part of Alaska and said importing LNG would be the other option.
[Original punctuation provided.]
The LNG import cost analysis considers four main
components (LNG cost, shipping, and regasification)
across the value chain, each with a potential range of
results
LNG import cost components
1. LNG Cost
• Multiple alternatives exist for securing supply
of LNG (i.e. acquiring the molecule), ranging
from spot market purchases, long-term supply and
purchase agreements (SPA), or taking a tolling
position partnering with an LNG developer
• Each alternative provides exposure to its own set
of market risks and requires different levels of
investment and management
2. Shipping
• LNG being a global commodity provides multiple
geographical alternatives that require shipping
cost considerations
• Alaska's access to the Pacific means geographical
focus in Pacific facing projects, ideally as
close as possible (e.g. West Canada projects),
though other limitations arise, such as
availability of supply or possible ship sizes
4:09:01 PM
MR. SWIFT continued to narrate slide 11.
3. Regasification
• LNG requires to be regasified (transformed back
to natural gas) to be consumed
• Regasification costs depends upon configuration
of the processing facility e.g.: Land vs.
1
[Floating Storage and Regasification Unit] FSRU,
overall size, storage requirements, levels of
utilization, etc.
4. On shore gas reception
• There are potential infrastructure requirements
depending on specific circumstances such as costs
to access the gas network and/or requirement to
have a dock that meets the needs to bring the gas
in-land in the case of an FSRU
Range of Cost estimated for LNG Imports
Source: Wood Mackenzie; 1. Floating Storage
Regasification Unit
4:10:21 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that ignoring the onshore gas reception
costs created a significant unknown in WMs estimate.
4:10:39 PM
MR. SWIFT concurred and said the typical costs for [onshore gas
reception] around the world vary from $50 to $500 million
dollars. He said the cost is very site-determinate.
4:10:58 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked whether WM looked at the site the [railbelt]
utility collaborative was considering and had reserved for the
AK LNG import facility.
4:11:18 PM
MR. SWIFT said WM had not.
4:11:24 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 12, which states: LNG
imports estimated at ~US $10.2-13.7/mmbtu plus onshore costs
downstream of regas, within range of the delivered cost via
pipeline. Slide 12 consists of two tables.
MR. SWIFT explained the four components of the first table, "LNG
Import cost range per value chain component":
• LNG price - the LNG market prefers contracts linked to a
global price, with JKM (North Asian gas price)
preferred over JCC (oil-linked contract) and becoming
more common.
• Shipping - shipping from Mexico results in a $1.40
reduction in costs, while shipping from Australia adds
$0.12 to $0.20.
• Regas - FSRU costs range between $1 to $1.50 and often
require longer-term commitments, ten to twenty years.
• Onshore reception - cost varies greatly depending on the
site
MR. SWIFT explained the second table comparing LNG import cost
with the cost of gas delivered by pipeline and made the
following observations.
Imported LNG:
• The cost of LNG import rises with onshore reception costs.
• The price range of importing LNG is between $10.20 and
$13.70 without the dock cost.
• The cost of imported LNG does not decrease with increased
demand.
Pipeline delivered Gas:
• The base load pipeline gas price is $12.80, with
incremental demand lowering the price.
• Industrial demand lowers the price to $8.97, and
additional industrial demand further reduces it to
$2.23.
4:14:31 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he observed that futures and projections show
significant JKM prices over the next decade. He asked whether
that was observed by WM and if it was incorporated in the model.
4:15:04 PM
MR. SWIFT said prices for the model were based on WM long-term
forecasts, the most recent for the model would have been the H-2
forecast for both JKM and JCC.
4:15:34 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether the $2.23 price quoted [for
pipeline gas] was the marginal price of the average price. He
further asked when that average price is achieved if the price
included all the capital costs.
4:16:24 PM
Mr. SWIFT said $2.23 was the price required to achieve a ten
percent return to the pipeline owner based on the level of debt
and equity used to build the pipeline. He said that would be the
price of gas delivered to the domestic market. He said sales to
the domestic market return ten percent to the pipeline owner.
4:17:10 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR withheld further questions and comment.
4:17:56 PM
MR. SWIFT sought to clarify that the modeling was based on
achieving the required ten percent return on investment.
4:18:54 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR noted the timeline on slide 9 extended to 2071
and observed that all the gas would not be delivered through the
pipeline at the same time. He asked whether the model included
all the gas expected to pass through the pipeline through 2071.
4:19:19 PM
MR. SWIFT concurred. He pointed out that scenarios that consider
the possibility that the pipeline operates until 2051 instead of
2071 only increases the rate by $0.57.
4:19:54 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 13. He said WM compared
the socio-economic benefits of AK LNG - Phase 1 with the socio-
economic benefits of imported LNG to Alaska.
[Original punctuation provided.]
The approach to assess the socio-economics benefits of
Alaska LNG Phase 1 considers four components
Components Considered to Assess Socio-Economic
Benefits
1. Assess standalone capex by project components:
• Total Capital Expenditure for Construction
• Analyze spend directly impacting Alaska
• Direct impact from increased labor, land,
and rights of way activity related to the
project
• Additional implied benefit of access to
incremental demand and higher probability of AK
LNG
2. Assess socio-economic benefits for the lifetime of
the project
• Lifetime operational expenditure (mostly in-state
spend)
• Government tax for gas monetization, pipeline
operations, and others
• Direct job creation by project components
• Construction phase
• Operations phase
3. Assess Indirect and Induced benefits
• Benchmark and select input-output multipliers for
indirect and induced benefits
• Quantify Indirect & Induced impact on Alaska
1
4. Assess potential for savings with access to low-
cost gas supply & other benefits
• Identify expected total state gas consumption
• Compare resulting cost of gas under base case
scenario to alternatives (LNG Imports)
• Project potential for savings across the target
operating period (20312071)
• Include other benefits, such as Fairbanks gas
adoption
Alaska LNG Phase 1 development: Socio-economic
benefits reflected in GVA, jobs and potential savings
Source: Wood Mackenzie; 1.GVA refers to the lifetime
impact on Alaska's GDP
4:21:20 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 14. Slide 14 is titled:
"Gross Value Added for Alaska LNG Phase 1 is estimated at ~US
$10.3 billion, with ~US$ 9.6 billion of direct economic impact
from the Project's investment and operations in-state
expenditure". The graph on slide 14 represents the following
points:
• Approximately $6 billion dollars in Capex will be spent in
Alaska
• Over the lifetime of the project Opex and Gas monetization
are expected to increase economic activity by approximately
$3.7 billion.
• Direct and inducing state benefits are expected to add $700
billion.
• The total addition to Alaska Gross Value from these impacts
is projected to be $10,335 billion.
4:22:39 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 15. A graph on slide 15
illustrates the " Total Economic Impact Estimated for Alaska LNG
Phase 1".
[Original punctuation provided.]
With potential implied savings (compared to LNG
imports) economic benefits to the state add up to ~US$
16.6 Bn
• Gas via pipeline has additional economic benefits
over the long term.
• Lifetime savings from the baseload supplied via
Pipeline, compared to LNG add up to ~US$ 5.7
billion
• Savings going back into the economy would also
generate indirect and induced impact.
• The pipeline provides potential upside for gas
demand and industrial activity
• Overall potential impact to the state of Alaska
is estimated at ~ US$16.5 billion or 2.8x in-
state capex
4:23:41 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that when the first Alaska pipeline was
built, there were significant social costs. She said the
workforce was imported and the workforce for the proposed LNG
pipeline would also require imported workers because Alaska does
not possess the required skill set in the proposed timeframe.
She said the wages would be exported and the social impacts
would include housing requirements, food supply, transportation,
etc. She asked how those considerations were factored into WMs
project model.
4:24:37 PM
MR. SWIFT said the impact of social costs on Alaska were divided
in two phases, the construction phase and operations phase. He
acknowledged that only 60 percent of the jobs are projected by
the model to originate in Alaska, with people who have the
required expertise coming to Alaska. He said the operational
phase will offer more stable long-term employment opportunities.
4:25:55 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opined that 60 percent was a very high estimate.
4:26:20 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and briefly narrated slide 16 which states
"The impact in jobs created from Alaska LNG Phase 1 is 4x larger
than the LNG imports alternative mainly due to a larger in-State
construction scope." Slide 16 contains two graphs illustrating
the expected impacts to the job market in Alaska for the
construction phase and operations phase of LNG Imports compared
with Alaska LNG - Phase 1.
4:26:41 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to and narrated slide 17, addressing the
difference to Fairbanks that access to the pipeline and gas
could make.
[Original punctuation provided.]
The substitution of wood/oil for gas in Fairbanks for
its energy needs offers a range of benefits: cleaner
air, lower emissions, removal from EPA's nonattainment
designation, etc.
Cleaner air
Local emissions from wood stoves and burning
distillate oil contribute to particulate pollution
With access to gas, a cleaner alternative becomes
available to improve air quality
EPA's nonattainment designation
A portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough,
including the City of Fairbanks, was designated as a
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area in December 2009.
By removing the designation, administrative expenses
are reduced as the implementation plans to attain and
maintain air pollutant emissions are no longer
required.
Health
Air pollution has direct consequences in public health
By reducing air pollution, public health expenses may
also decrease
Potential access to grants and investment
EPA's nonattainment designation may limit private
and/or public investment in the region
Source: Wood Mackenzie and Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
4:27:50 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked how much the pipeline off-take to allow
delivery to Fairbanks would cost.
4:28:04 PM
MR. SWIFT deferred to Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
(AGDC).
4:28:15 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to slide 18 and asked whether the
baseload case at $12.80 included a potential tariff for a
Fairbanks) spur line and the Capex for expanding the natural gas
network in the Fairbanks area.
4:28:41 PM
MR. SWIFT said $12.80 was the cost of delivered gas to the spur
line. He said there would have to be an extra tariff to move gas
from the main pipeline to the spur line and to Fairbanks.
4:29:01 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said slide 17 and 18 were not relevant to WM's
estimate because of the costs that were not taken into account.
4:29:16 PM
MR. SWIFT agreed and said the costs that WM accounted for
related to the Anchorage region and not to Fairbanks.
4:29:55 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted WM's model did not take into account the
Capex for expanding the gas infrastructure in Fairbanks or the
tariff for the off-take. She suggested, therefore, that slides
17 and 18 were not relevant to the study.
4:30:25 PM
MR. SWIFT moved to slide 18, however the telephone connection
became significantly unstable and difficult/impossible to
discern.
4:32:04 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted the disruption to the transmission was too
significant to continue.
4:32:14 PM
At ease.
4:32:23 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting.
4:32:34 PM
MR. SWIFT attempted to move to slide 19, however the connection
could not be re-established.
4:33:00 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL concluded the presentation, guiding the committee
to read through the summary slide, slide 19.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Gas supply via pipeline provides over ~US$10 Bn of
positive economic impact, 2 - 4x more jobs, and access
to lower delivered costs vs LNG imports, though it
requires higher capex
• Cook Inlet gas supply has declined, and despite
exploration efforts by operators, no new volumes
have been discovered
• Lack of reliable and affordable gas supply drove
decline in demand, however going forward supply is
expected to drop faster creating a demand gap of
~2.3 tcf (to 2071) projected to begin by the end of
this decade
• With Cook Inlet gas production proving to be
challenging, there are two main alternatives to
address the forecasted supply & demand gap:
Natural Gas Supply via Pipeline
A 765 mile (Phase 1), 42-inch diameter pipeline
connecting the Southcentral Alaska region with the
North Slope fields
• Cost of delivered gas in the US$2.23 $12.8/mmbtu
• Direct, indirect and induced GVA: ~US$ 10.3 Bn
1
• 2,271 jobs created during construction and 1,138 in
operations
•
3
Time to first gas 2031
• Provides access to upside demand with additional
industrial and economic benefits to the state
• Reducing emissions and removal from EPA's
nonattainment in Fairbanks via substitution of oil &
wood as primary energy source
• Higher likelihood of full Alaska LNG Project
LNG Imports
Gas imports via LNG, for which regas and further
downstream infrastructure is required
• Cost of delivered gas in the US$10.2 $13.7/mmbtu
(plus onshore costs)
• Lower capex & lower direct, indirect and induced GVA
1
~US$0.6 1.4 Bn ? 568 jobs during construction and
250 in operations
2
• 3-4 Years post FID, though no major permit
applications have been submitted. Permitting and/or
required buildout could delay first gas
• Focused supply for the Southcentral region
• No Fairbanks or additional industrial demand
• Exposure to higher price volatility for energy needs
Source: Wood Mackenzie; 1. Direct, indirect and
induced jobs, average per year of each period; 2.
First gas for LNG imports is dependent on receiving
all required permits, and Wood Mackenzie is uncertain
about the status of those. Additionally, as of March
2024, Enstar's (local gas distributor) earliest
estimation of first gas is 2029. 3. The AGDC has
indicated that the pipeline has all major permits in
place
^PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPORT
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPORT
4:33:17 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the presentation, Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation, by Frank Richards.
4:33:46 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, President, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC), Anchorage, Alaska, said he was pleased to
present this progress update for the AK LNG project. He
reiterated the Wood MacKenzie assertion that AK LNG Phase One
pipeline would be able to deliver long-term energy needs to
Alaskans and set the stage for future economic growth from
exports.
4:34:20 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to and narrated slide 2.
[Original punctuation provided.]
AGDC
The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)
• Independent, public corporation owned by the State
of Alaska (SOA)
• Created by the Alaska State Legislature
Mission
• Maximize the benefit of Alaska's vast North Slope
natural gas resources through the development of
infrastructure necessary to move the gas to local
and international markets
Current Owner and Developer of the Alaska LNG Project
• Transitioning project to private ownership under
qualified developers
4:34:53 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to and narrated slide 3. Slide 3 includes a
map of Alaska and illustrates the proposed path of the AK LNG
pipeline.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Alaska LNG Overview
North Slope Gas Supply
• 40 Tcf of gas reserves in PBU and PTU
• 122 Tcf of total "Proved Producing Reserves" in
Alaska*
• Early Supply from Great Bear Pantheon
Arctic Carbon Capture (ACC)
• Adjacent to existing PBU gas plants, will remove and
sequester CO 2 from raw gas stream and condition gas
to LNG specifications
Natural Gas Pipeline
• 807-mile pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Nikiski,
follows existing oil pipeline and highway system,
with gas delivered to Alaska communities and the LNG
plant
Alaska LNG Facility
• 20-MTPA LNG facility located in Nikiski near the
legacy Kenai LNG Plant
*https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/pdf/T
able_8.pdf
4:35:26 PM
MR. RICHARDS said the foundation of the AK LNG plan was the
forty trillion cubic feet of proven [natural gas] reserves in
Prudhoe Bay and Point Thompson with an additional 122 trillion
cubic feet of proven producing reserves in Alaska as reported by
the energy information office. He said this does not include
Great Bear Pantheon's assets.
4:35:58 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to and narrated slide 4. He said Phase One
includes just the mainline pipe from the North Slope to
Southcentral Alaska with the off-take for Fairbanks to allow
utilization of existing gas resources and provide the lowest
cost gas to Alaskans at the lowest possible cost. The pipeline
would be the full 42 inch diameter pipe permitted through the AK
LNG project. He said the concept for the AK LNG project was
based on using the Great Bear Pantheon produced gas. He noted
the carbon dioxide (CO2) content of Great bear Pantheon gas was
less that 0.5 percent as opposed to gas from Prudhoe Bay and
Point Thompson which had significantly higher CO2 content,
requiring treatment to achieve pipeline quality. He emphasized
that the AK LNG project has been fully permitted and integrated
through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and
Environmental Impact review and other federal authorizations.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Phase 1 of Alaska LNG
Alaska LNG is a fully permitted integrated LNG export,
pipeline, and gas treatment project
Phase 1 is the pre-build of the pipeline from the
North Slope of Alaska to Southcentral Alaska
Phase 2 is the construction of North Slope gas
treatment and LNG export facilities
By phasing Alaska LNG, Alaska can utilize existing
permits to quickly provide gas for Alaskans and
provide infrastructure for future LNG exports and
industrial use
4:37:17 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to and narrated slide 5. He said AGDC came
before the Alaska legislature in 2024 to talk about the
potential of the AK LNG Phase One project and that it would
require a major pipeline company to come in and execute front-
end engineering and design, including cost estimates, execution
plans, and labor studies to be sure the project could be
developed economically.
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024 Legislative Intent Language
"It is the intent of the legislature that the Alaska
Gasline Development Corporation continue to work
towards meeting the critical energy needs of Alaskans
by advancing a pipeline project proposal which would
deliver North Slope natural gas to Alaska's utilities,
businesses, and homeowners. Further, it is the intent
of the legislature that the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation complete an independent third-party review
of a project proposal that would commercialize North
Slope gas and present that analysis to the legislature
by December 20, 2024. It is the further intent of the
legislature that if analysis shows a positive economic
value to the state, all parties would work toward
Front End Engineering and Design for Phase 1 of a
pipeline project."
At the direction of the Alaska Legislature, Wood
Mackenzie was contracted to complete an independent
third-party economic assessment of the Alaska LNG
Phase 1 Pipeline.
The analysis shows a positive economic value to the
state.
4:38:19 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked why AGDC was requesting $50 million backstop
funding from Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(AIDEA) or the state directly if the economics look so
promising.
4:38:32 PM
MR. RICHARDS said the $50 million backstop was initiated by
North American Pipeline Services to advance the entire pipeline
project, including compressor stations and the Cook Inlet
crossing. He said the pipeline company wanted assurance that
they would be reimbursed for their engineering efforts if the
project does not proceed to a final investment decision. He
explained that the pipeline company would execute preliminary
work, contract with engineers and construction contractors, and
obtain cost estimates from pipe mills at their expense. He said
the state of Alaska would then decide whether to proceed with a
final investment decision. If the project moves forward, the $50
million will be returned to either AIDEA or the state of Alaska.
If the project does not proceed, the backstop would cover the
pipeline company's costs. He said this approach was common in
the pipeline industry, ensuring that companies have cost
recovery assurance before proceeding with major projects.
4:40:25 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked who normally provides that backstop funding
according to industry standard.
4:40:36 PM
MATT KISSINGER, Senior Principal, New Business Ventures, Alaska
Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), Anchorage, Alaska,
explained that it was standard practice in major oil and gas
projects for the project sponsor to provide financial backing, a
"backstop," to the pipeline company. He said this helps keep the
cost of equity low for the pipeline company, which typically
seeks low-risk, low-return investments to manage the high binary
risk associated with development phases. The state, as the
project sponsor, would assume the higher cost of capital.
4:41:35 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN said, in the more traditional gas market, it
would be the party that owns the gas, in this case the oil
companies, who would be the ones fronting the $50 million for
the pipeline. He said it would be the oil companies selling the
gas, it wouldn't be the local state that might benefit from the
gas for its residents to get the gas, it would be the owner of
the resource.
4:42:12 PM
MR. KISSINGER said that, in some cases it would be the upstream
parties, but in a lot of cases it would be the downstream
parties that would provide that support. In this case, he said,
the downstream parties who would benefit from the first $200
million are ultimately the residents of Alaska.
4:42:30 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN said, in the traditional model, it would be the
utilities who would be providing the money for development and
later selling the gas to their customers. He said it wouldn't be
the customers putting up the money for development.
4:42:53 PM
MR. KISSINGER said it was often the utility company. He also
said when an owner-state or country was involved, the country
would [provide the backstop funding]. He offered to provide
examples for the committee.
4:43:08 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether it was correct that the Wood
MacKenzie study was funded by AGDC.
4:43:21 PM
MR. RICHARDS said it was the governor's office who funded the
Wood MacKenzie study.
4:43:27 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether the details of the study were
arranged by AGDC.
4:43:31 PM
MR. RICHARDS said the intent and desire for [the Wood MacKenzie
study] came from a meeting with senate leadership, house
leadership and co-chairs of the finance committees of both
bodies with the governor. He said it was at that time the
governor said he would be willing to fund the third party
independent analysis by an outside consultant.
4:43:57 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether AGDC coordinated [with the
governor's office] to determine what questions to ask and how
the questions would be answered.
4:44:10 PM
MR. RICHARDS said AGDC contracted with Wood MacKenzie (WM) and
gave them the broad scope of the economic evaluation based on
the intent language provided by the legislature.
4:44:24 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN sought to clarify his question. He noted the
number of questions asked during this presentation that were not
answered or addressed by the WM study. He said the difference in
cost for the AK LNG project, $40 billion vs. $11 billion, was a
wide gulf and it seems like a lot of cost factors were not built
in to the questions that were asked in the contract [with WM].
He said the WM doesn't really help very much because there
appear to be a lot of costs that aren't factored in.
4:45:28 PM
MR. RICHARDS said the intent was to provide answers to the
questions around Phase One of the AK LNG project, specifically
looking at the pipeline to deliver gas for Alaskans. He said the
study could have been expanded to include the entirety of the AK
LNG project, but that was not the goal. He said the goal was to
develop a pipeline project designed to meet Alaskans' needs as
opposed to looking at the cost of importing LNG and ultimately
looking to see whether [AK LNG - Phase One] was going to have
good economic value to the state of Alaska.
4:46:09 PM
MR. RICHARDS said WM assessed the overall AK LNG project for
AGDC in 2021-2022. They calculated a cost of supply of
approximately $6.75 per unit, which included extraction,
treatment, pipeline, liquefaction, and shipping costs. He said
this cost compared favorably to market rates in the Japan Korean
market (JKM) and against oil-linked contracts and Henry Hub,
suggesting that the AK LNG project would be commercially viable
and cost-competitive. He reiterated that the goal was to ensure
the project met Alaska's needs and provided economic value to
the state.
4:47:33 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether AGDC consulted with the downstream
utilities and what their position toward the AK LNG project was.
4:47:49 PM
MR. RICHARDS said AGDC consulted the utilities with regard to
their need for a steady supply [of gas]. AGDC offered the
components of the AK LNG project that would help meet their
needs. He said the utilities are rate-based and for them to go
on record and hold a $50 million chit was going to be more than
they could afford.
4:48:38 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that the goal of the [WM] study was to
determine the cost of getting gas to Alaskans, yet it did not
include the cost of getting gas to Fairbanks. She noted the
extra steps required between Nikiski and Fairbanks and proposed
that the project as described wouldn't help Fairbanks.
4:49:12 PM
MR. RICHARDS said the legislature directed AGDC to develop an
in-state pipeline with a lateral into Fairbanks under the Alaska
standalone pipeline project. He said after completing front-end
engineering design and securing rights of way and permits, AGDC
is ready to proceed.
MR. RICHARDS explained that the AK LNG project was different. It
included the off-take, but not the lateral [pipeline section]
leading into Fairbanks. He said there would be an updated cost
estimate for about 32 miles of pipe leading to a location near
the university called city gate. He said it was assumed the
Fairbanks utility would then take on the distribution of the
natural gas from city gate to the residents of the Fairbanks
North Star Borough.
4:50:23 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that she was present when AGDC provided the
in-state pipeline numbers.
4:50:30 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR sought to focus on the $50 million backstop. He
asked for clarification about what would happen to those funds.
He asked whether there was a possibility that AGDC would
approach the legislature asking additional funds in the future
to prevent losing the initial $50 million backstop and get the
project to a final investment decision (FID).
4:51:21 PM
MR. RICHARDS said Genfarne would serve as the lead developer in
the Alaska LNG project with an estimated capital commitment of
$150 million. Prior to Glenfarnes commitment, Mr. Richards
approached the legislature [in 2024] to request a $50 million
backstop. He explained that AGDC had yet to sign definiteve
agreements [with Glenfarne] and intended to meet the legislative
directive to secure gas for Alaskans. He said it appeared
Glenfarne's participation would add value and lower costs for
Alaska and ADGC was working with [Alaska Industrial Development
and Export Authority] (AIDEA) on a development finance
agreement.
4:53:02 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether Glenfarne would be bringing the
mentioned $150 million investment or if the state was expected
to pay that to Glenfarne.
4:53:12 PM
MR. RICHARDS said it would be the developers who would bring
that money to the table. The commercial negotiations AGDC
entered into were in recognition of the tremendous wealth and
resources Alaska has put into moving [an LNG pipeline project]
forward. He said AGDC developed the project and is prepared to
move forward with the state of Alaska as a minority owner. The
next phase of work is to be covered by the developers.
4:53:58 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that in prior AGDC board meetings
Goldman Sachs was reported to be vetting private party
candidates for the [pipeline] project. He asked whether Goldman
Sachs recommended Glenfarne as a preferred candidate.
4:54:17 PM
MR. RICHARDS said Goldman Sachs worked with AGDC for a couple
years and introduced them to potential development partners,
financiers and international oil companies. AGDC also went out
independently and engaged with other parties who had the
wherewithal, the interest and the balance sheets to move the
project forward. He said AGDC was first introduced to Glenfarne
under their own volition.
4:54:55 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether AGDC ascertained Glenfarne's
source of funds.
4:55:01 PM
MR. RICHARDS said due diligence had been done and was
continuing.
4:55:11 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the AGDC board of directors
approved the selection of Glenfarne for exclusive negotiations.
4:55:17 PM
MR. RICHARDS said AGDC informed the board of directors that they
were engaged in negotiations with Glenfarne via a letter of
intent. He said the decision whether to accept Glenfarne as a
partner will ultimately be made by the AGDC board of directors.
4:55:34 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he interpreted that answer as a "no"
and asked whether the AGDC board of directors approved of the
execution of the Glenfarne exclusivity contract and whether
there was a resolution to that effect.
4:55:44 PM
MR. RICHARDS said the AGDC was informed.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pressed, asking whether the board approved
this.
4:55:51 PM
MR. RICHARDS said there was not a resolution from the board
directing AGDC to sign the letter of intent.
4:56:02 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that statute stipulates the attorney
general acts as legal counsel for AGDC. He asked whether the
attorney general prepared, reviewed or approved the exclusivity
agreement with Glenfarne.
4:56:13 PM
MR. RICHARDS said AGDC engaged with the attorney general and
with outside counsel on the letter of intent.
4:56:26 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether Glenfarne had developed any
large pipelines or completed any United States LNG projects.
4:56:34 PM
MR. RICHARDS said Glenfarne owns pipelines in South America, an
LNG import facility, and they currently own two projects, one in
Texas and one in Louisiana that are yet to go to construction.
4:56:48 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that Glenfarne acquired ownership in
two stalled LNG projects and had yet to advance them to closure.
He asked whether these projects would be competing with the
Alaska LNG project.
4:56:59 PM
MR. RICHARDS said the Texas LNG project was fully subscribed
with by off-take from large U.S. natural gas developers and by
utilities in Europe. He said all of the contracts will be to
supply LNG to the utilities in the European basin, not to the
Asia-Pacific.
4:57:27 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether Glenfarne had indicated that
were willing to put the Alaska project as their top priority for
development.
4:57:41 PM
MR. RICHARDS affirmed that it had.
4:57:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted the statute stipulated that a
contract negotiated under Alaska law must include the
requirement that the state shall have access to data developed
under the agreement on the same or substantially similar terms
applicable to any other party in a north slope natural gas
project. He asked whether the Glenfarne agreement included such
a provision.
4:58:07 PM
MR. RICHARDS said he did not recall that specific language, so
he would have to go back and look at the contract.
4:58:18 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether any Alaska companies were
considered to lead the project and, if so, were they given an
opportunity to submit a proposal.
4:58:24 PM
MR. RICHARDS said AGDC had been out marketing the LNG project
for a number of years and had received some proposals, including
one from an Alaska group. He said it fell back to a
determination of whether they qualified financially or had the
financial capabilities to execute the project.
4:58:44 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how this group fell short.
4:58:53 PM
MR. RICHARDS asked whether there was a specific group the
senator was asking about.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said Mr. Richards said there was another
group. He asked who the other group was and how they fell short.
4:59:03 PM
MR. RICHARDS said AGDC was approached by a group that included
former governor Walker, former AGDC president Keith Meyer, and
others who proposed partnering with AGDC. He said the challenge
was that the funding available to them was a commitment to AGDC.
4:59:47 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said there was apparently funding available
and asked what the problem with a funding commitment to AGDC
presented.
4:59:59 PM
MR. RICHARDS said there was not sufficient funding available. He
said the funding available was single digits of millions of
dollars, not hundreds of millions.
5:00:21 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether Glenfarne had more funding
available.
MR. RICHARDS affirmed that Glenfarne had more funding available.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how much.
5:00:35 PM
MR. KISSINGER explained that AGDC was under confidentiality
agreement constraints and could not provide the exact amount,
however he confirmed that Glenfarne has sufficient cash on hand
to meet the commitment they are making to take the project to
[final investment decision] (FID).
5:01:00 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how much it would cost to take the
[AK LNG] project to FID.
5:01:05 PM
MR. KISSINGER said AGDC's estimate was $150 million.
5:01:19 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted comments about Alaska's investment in the
LNG pipeline and said it was estimated the state had
appropriated approximately $650 million dollars to advance the
project so far. She noted that did not include the decade and a
half of staffing AGDC.
5:02:16 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 5:02p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1.27.25 Alaska Gasline Development Corporation Presentation to Senate Resources Committee.pdf |
SRES 1/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| 1.27.25 Wood Mackenzie AGDC Alaska LNG Phase 1 Presentation to Senate Resources Committee.pdf |
SRES 1/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |