Video Clips

Quoted moments from Alaska public meetings, hearings, and press conferences.

0:17

Dan Stickel

“It does start with the same effective tax rates as the House version and simply fixes those rates and allocations in, in statute. The Senate version then added in the two doublings of the tax rate that was a major change from the House version.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

0:32

Dan Stickel

“the capital expenditure weighting and the project component weighting, that applied both for calculating the initial tax rates, but then also applied for calculating the sharing out to municipalities. And that sharing out to municipalities has also been fixed in statute. In the Senate version of the bill. So removing some of that complexity. The other addition that the Senate made is the two step-ups.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

0:55

Adam Prestidge

“The 2032 completion of construction is more about managing theoretical risk that lenders and investors will look at when they make an investment decision on the project. And so regardless of how we all want to move fast, Regardless of the timing around the energy availability out of the Cook Inlet, lenders and investors will just see this numerically and assign it a hypothetical risk that will make the project more expensive. And so we don't see it adding any additional incentive that isn't there already. It just adds risk to the project that will be priced into the financing.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

0:24

Dan Stickel

“for a pipeline-only portion of the project, you'd have a 6-cent per MCF tax rate, and then once the full project was in operations, we would estimate that the tax rate on a weighted average basis would be about 10.6 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

0:27

Adam Prestidge

“The deadline of 2037 is well within— well beyond the project completion deadline, even if we put a couple years of contingency on that. And so a 2037 deadline doesn't have that same risk profile to the FID investors. And so for that reason, we suggest deleting the 2032 deadline.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

1:12

Adam Prestidge

“our practical expectation is that we will complete the project ahead of these timelines, and so the deadline or the timeline that you said The end of the year for FID maintains— continues to be our target. And we would— if we were to follow a target construction schedule, even with some delays, we would complete the project before December 31st, well before December 31st, 2032.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

0:38

Dan Stickel

“the state starts out receiving about 9% of the AVT revenue. That will drop to 5% with the first doubling of the tax rate.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

1:08

Dan Stickel

“in those early years, the vast majority of the revenue is allocated to the communities that the project is directly in. So $109 million of the AVT in 2034 would go to those 5 municipalities, with an additional $13 million spread statewide to community revenue sharing and $12 million to the state. And then the second column shows after the first step up in the alternative volumetric tax, and that additional step up goes entirely to community revenue sharing.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

1:15

Bryce Edgmon

“the reason why I'm, I guess, at this juncture supportive of keeping in the 2028 timeline, if anything at all, it's just speaking of risk, poring through the Gaffney Klein document that was presented to the legislature in December 2025 that talks about all these sort of jurisdictions around the globe and the need for property tax relief and some sort of relief to get these very expensive front-end projects, gas line infrastructure, into place, is supported by years of analysis and efforts.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

0:30

Adam Prestidge

“we as the project developer at 8 Star have no objection to the 2028 FID deadline. We're only raising concerns around the 2032 completion of construction deadline.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

0:21

Dan Stickel

“The first effective 10 years, after 10 years of LNG export operations, where the tax rate doubles. And then the second effective in 2060, where the tax rate doubles. Again.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

1:12

Dan Stickel

“in fiscal year 2061, which would be the first full fiscal year after the the second step up of the alternative volumetric tax. At that point in time, after adjusting for the inflation, there would be $212 million shared directly with the communities that the project resides in, an additional $285 million shared across the state based on population for community revenue sharing, and then the state at that point in time would get a little over $500 million.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

0:22

Mike Cronk

“if we do nothing, these numbers go away, we have nothing here. There's zero revenue brought to this state. There's zero revenue brought to many communities.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

1:02

Adam Prestidge

“the 2028 deadline, it puts a bit of a risk on the developer and it puts an incentive on the developer, but it does that at a time before billions of construction dollars have been put at risk on the project. And so essentially putting that 2032 deadline puts additional risk on all the investment dollars that doesn't serve the benefit of actually accelerating anything. And the issue that then comes up is if there were a delay in construction, if there were litigation, if there was COVID, you know, an epidemic, that's just, those are all hypothetical risks that could occur, that have occurred on other projects, that lenders and investors are going to be nervous about.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

0:21

Dan Stickel

“the Senate version of the bill removes some of the complexity in the calculation that was in the prior version of the bill.”

Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am · Jun 27, 2026

0:22

Matt Kissinger

“Senator Steadman, through the chair, if you would be willing to provide us with a copy of that document, then we can consider redacting it and reviewing it. But as of now, we've only been able to look at that document. We don't have, uh, we don't have our own copy of that.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:51

Adam Prestidge

“we do have the view that if there were ever a cash consideration or a cash repurchase, we would not ask for the monetary value of any tax arrangement to be reflected in any repurchase. So Glenfarm's position is that you would not claim credit for any value added through tax abatement or other relief from the legislature? Representative Sharkey, essentially yes.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:19

Calvin Schrage

“One question that I would have, which has not been addressed as of yet, is who is able to claim value for any tax abatement that's provided by the legislature. I think I've not heard that issue addressed yet and would appreciate hearing from you on that.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:43

Dan Stickel

“The— with the alternative volumetric tax that reduces that breakeven price into the global market down to— from $9.05 down to $8.62 per 1,000 cubic feet.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:25

Dan Stickel

“in the cash flow summaries, there is a shift of revenue from the federal government and the upstream and midstream into the state government component of about $2.2 billion over life of project.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:43

Frank Richards

“it was important from AGDC's perspective to allow the opportunity for the state with a callback position, but it didn't obligate the state to pay it. It would be something that we, if it was exercised, we would come back to the legislature to ask if they wanted to go forward with the opportunity to pay this. Or we have the opportunity then to be able to look to the open market to bring in another developer to be able to take on that expense and take on those responsibilities that Glenfarm is now doing.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:42

Adam Prestidge

“one of our core principles has to do things right by the state, and so to prioritize low-cost domestic gas as low as possible, to do the project as quickly as possible, and more above all, to make sure our contracts and our arrangements with the state are fair to all parties involved. One of those things that we think is fair is the state's clawback option. That's something that AGDC proposed to us in our negotiations.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

1:14

Frank Richards

“The document that we are discussing today is a draft document that AGDC staff created specifically to provide information to AGDC's board while we were working on the definitive agreement. It contains a summary description of the, the documents that we were negotiating with Glenfarm at the time, specifically naming them, but it also includes information around the selection of Glenfarm as the lead developer as compared to other parties. And so there is commercially sensitive information in there about other parties that we would find, again, would breach our confidentiality agreements with those other parties.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:30

Matt Kissinger

“If you're moving towards milestones and you're going to penalize your developer and they miss a milestone and you can just take everything away from them and they can lose everything, they will put nothing into it. And this is a $44 billion project that we're building. We need to put the very best work going into it. And that's why we're— there were these paid clawbacks with respect to our ability to push the developer out.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:42

Dan Stickel

“Representative Ruffridge, through the chair, so that would be a great question to ask the developer, but based on the baseline assumptions that we have and the— what is in the futures market, it does look like a challenging project even with the tax relief.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:33

Justin Ruffridge

“I think, Mr. Stickel, you're being generous when you say marginal. If the futures market is $8— and we're assuming a $1.50 upstream gas price and we're probably looking at the plus 20% line or the plus 40% line at— in real terms, none of the items I'm looking at on that screen seem to be even in the definition of marginal. It seems like they don't work.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:36

Dan Stickel

“slide 33 is the version that came off of the Senate floor, which is the same— for modeling purposes, it's the same as the Senate Finance version, except that it adds that pass-through entity tax, and so that's where you see that orange orange bar, which is the corporate income tax, which was a fairly modest contribution on slide 32, becomes very significant on slide 33 as we expand that corporate income tax to apply to pass-through entities.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:49

Matt Kissinger

“Representative Fields asked about these clawback mechanisms at that meeting, and what I said was, I said there, I said, and just to address this clearly, This is my words. And just to address this clearly, because I've heard many questions that dance around this, the clawback would be a paid clawback. And there's real important reason for that.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:21

Dan Stickel

“We are assuming a 10% pretax rate of return for the developer, that that's what's being targeted. I underline pretax there because when we add the pass-through entity tax on top of it, that changes the dynamics for the developer.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:57

Dan Stickel

“The material impact between S and S as amended from a modeling standpoint is the inclusion of the pass-through entity tax.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:49

Dan Stickel

“a lot of these assumptions were developed before Glenfarn came onto the scene. We have not received a lot of detailed information and details details on project plan from them, given confidentiality. And so we have carried forward many of these assumptions. There was a significant amount of work that was done in 2018 and 2019.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:43

Dan Stickel

“The act of agreeing on a new set of baseline assumptions, ideally that would be a months-long process where we would collaborate, we would review all of the latest information in detail, spend some time with it. We would collaborate with stakeholders, partners and agencies, developer, AGDC, industry, and kind of synthesize all of that information. And come up with a new set of baseline assumptions.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:39

Matt Kissinger

“This is the difference between us getting to a point where we can't achieve FID and Glenfarn leaving the project, and the state having an option to push Glenfarn out if they don't meet certain milestones. This was an option, the latter, where we can push them out. This is an option that AGDC wanted. This is a state option that we requested and negotiated for our benefit And if I may, on April 23rd of last year, so 2025, this question was brought up in front of Legislative Budget and Audit.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:40

Justin Ruffridge

“I really would like to know how much the construction cost, because it seems to me to be a large assumption, weighs into what we're going to see here later, particularly on breakeven prices and other areas of, I think, importance to us as we're making decisions. If the construction cost is higher than what this model has assumed, what main areas does that affect in these following slides?”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:22

Dan Stickel

“Representative Ruffridge to the Chair, correct, yes. So the assumption is that there is significant capital expenditure for the Phase 2 and then kind of a steady-state operations beyond that. If the developer were to do a significant expansion, yes, that would reduce their corporate income tax liability.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:25

Bert Stedman

“on Phase 1, the mid-range of the low and the high went from $13 to almost $17 billion, is $15 billion. Then you could add the 15% contingency, that puts you at $17 billion. So you can use $17 or a common number is 20%, that'd be $18 billion.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:42

Dan Stickel

“The biggest one of these was the— that directly impacts the Department of Revenue was the implementation of the pass-through entity tax for oil and gas companies. This is a significant policy decision that's before the committee and the legislature.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:46

Dan Stickel

“One additional bullet point that should have been on this slide for the version that passed out of the Senate floor is the implementation of a new pass-through entity tax that would apply to certain oil and gas companies in the state.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:54

Justin Ruffridge

“If this assumption, let's say on slide 21, from 20— looks like '46 and moving onward, is that there is the assumed, I would say, increase in potential revenue from a corporate income tax, that is only if the entity in question here does not take some of those dollars and let's say they reinvest those things in an export facility expansion, maybe an additional gas line, other sort of areas, all of those potential revenue dollars would have— could disappear. Is that an accurate assumption?”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:27

Adam Prestidge

“First, in response, Senator Hoffman, you asked about Glenfarm's willingness to continue to pursue the project, and we're absolutely willing to continue to pursue the project, and we will. It doesn't— it creates a little bit of a hesitation around how— around business principles and how, you know, how we will be able to trust certain confidential— confidentiality protections.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:24

Bert Stedman

“I would recommend you redact that information out of them if you were to release it. It seems like the bulk of that document is not commercially sensitive from what I could see. There's a few things in there that's best left private.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:26

Bert Stedman

“I'm sure we'll be looking as we go forward in this process to ensure that there's, um, that it's clearly delineated that there could be no monetary value put on that, um, concession, whatever concessions we make here with property tax. So it won't be left up to an arbitrator in, in arguments.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:36

Bert Stedman

“As far as it being a hypothetical potential of not going forward with the project, I don't believe it's that hypothetical because we've had numerous gas line projects that have not succeeded. This is just the latest one over the last 30 years. And there's a lot of FERC permits issued that never come to fruition.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:02

Bert Stedman

“Well, noise it's not.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:19

Bert Stedman

“One recommendation that you may want to consider due to the volume of individuals that have that document is to possibly redact some of the information in it and release it to the public. I don't see how you're going to pull it back.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:38

Bert Stedman

“My understanding from reading some of the articles that one of the news media person got it from somebody outside the building. Unconnected to the legislature. So where that came from, I don't know, but it's circulated.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

1:22

Dan Stickel

“once full export operations begin in 2033, you'd start to see more revenue, just shy of $200 million a year total, but you'd start to see more revenue from the oil and gas production in the upstream, and then once you get out into the later years of the project and you start to see the significant potential revenues from the midstream developer that the corporate income tax impact could be over $600 million per year from this provision.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

0:24

Dan Stickel

“We note the significant policy difference between the two versions of the bill is that pass-through entity tax that is in the version that came out of the Senate floor. That does create— that does add a level of uncertainty uncertainty and is a significant policy decision for the committee to consider.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

← NewerOlder →