0:52
Adam Prestidge
92:41 - 93:33
"I have heard quite a few times that Gaffney Klein has made comments about a 10-year abatement in comparison, even going so far as to say that he thinks that Gaffney Klein's opinion is that the project only needs a 10-year abatement. That is factually not correct. The Department of Revenue has a financial model that would back that up. If there were to be a shorter-term abatement that then ended reverted back to 20 mils, it would severely challenge the economics of the project, and lenders and investors would simply look at that 30-year forecast, they would calculate the tax reduction during that short period of time, and then the financial burden on the project if the tax were returned up to 20 mils, and as I said, that really makes the project not— Yes. That really challenges the project's viability."
“I have heard quite a few times that Gaffney Klein has made comments about a 10-year abatement in comparison, even going so far as to say that he thinks that Gaffney Klein's opinion is that the project only needs a 10-year abatement. That is factually not correct. The Department of Revenue has a financial model that would back that up. If there were to be a shorter-term abatement that then ended reverted back to 20 mils, it would severely challenge the economics of the project, and lenders and investors would simply look at that 30-year forecast, they would calculate the tax reduction during that short period of time, and then the financial burden on the project if the tax were returned up to 20 mils, and as I said, that really makes the project not— Yes. That really challenges the project's viability.”
- Speaker
- Adam Prestidge
- Timestamp
- 92:41 – 93:33
- Community
- Alaska News
- Location
- Alaska
- Captured at
- June 16, 2026
From the transcript
I have heard quite a few times that Gaffney Klein has made comments about a 10-year abatement in comparison, even going so far as to say that he thinks that Gaffney Klein's opinion is that the project only needs a 10-year abatement. That is factually not correct. The Department of Revenue has a financial model that would back that up. If there were to be a shorter-term abatement that then ended reverted back to 20 mils, it would severely challenge the economics of the project, and lenders and investors would simply look at that 30-year forecast, they would calculate the tax reduction during that short period of time, and then the financial burden on the project if the tax were returned up to 20 mils, and as I said, that really makes the project not— Yes. That really challenges the project's viability.