Video Clips
Quoted moments from Alaska public meetings, hearings, and press conferences.
Clips from Alaska State LegislatureClear
0:25
Alyse Galvin“in other words, if it's $18 Japan market and then at $1 shipping plus $3 to $5 for LNG facilities, then are we talking 22 to $24?”
Alaska Legislature: House Finance, 6/1/26, 1:30pm ·
0:21
Dan Stickel“at $9.07 delivered this is a marginal project.”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
0:56
Dan Stickel“under current tax law, with our existing property tax and our baseline assumptions, state revenue from the project, including Both upstream and midstream components would be just shy of 30, 30 billion dollars over life of project and a little over 17 billion dollars to municipalities.”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
1:00
Matthew Kissinger“it starts with a temporary tax abatement that would expire once the project achieves either 500 million standard cubic feet per day of throughput or five years from commencing commercial operations, whichever is first. It also sets out an alternative volumetric tax, which is $0.06 per thousand standard cubic feet flowing through the pipeline and $0.12 for gas flowing through the GTP and $0.12 for Gas flowing through the LNG facility. However, that is then weighted by the total proportion of capital that each of those segments it constitutes of the total project capital.”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
0:44
Bert Stedman“You may conclude from AGDC's point that it is a, you know, marginal project to go forward. My concern is Department of Revenue may conclude like has been referenced here at the previous meeting. It could go negative, net negative revenue against the state. So that is a significant concern at the table.”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
0:35
Matthew Kissinger“Section 19 creates a mitigation fund of up to $90 million per year. And then it sets up how that that gets allocated between the different impacted municipalities and the state”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
0:56
Bert Stedman“we're being told here at the table it may cost 45 billion or it may cost 90 billion. It's not an acceptable answer, just not an acceptable answer.”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
0:48
Dan Stickel“you can see that the replacing the property tax with the alternative volumetric tax decreases that cost of supply by about $0.50 per thousand cubic feet. If capital costs were to come in 10% below our assumption, it would have a similar impact. And we can see here that if capital costs were to come in significantly higher than what we're assuming, that would have really the largest impact of any of these variables on the economics of the project”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
0:33
Dan Stickel“our 2033 break even cost of supply given all of our baseline assumptions and current tax law would be $4.86 into the in state market and $9.07 per thousand cubic feet into the global market.”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
0:27
Bert Stedman“the conversations I've had with some of the industry folks, both big and small, there's been significant cost escalations since January, dealing with equipment, fuel, manpower, what have you. And some of the rough impacts I've been given is 10%, and that's just since January.”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
0:56
Dan Stickel“This bill would reduce total state revenues over life of project from 29.7 down to $22.8 billion, would reduce municipal revenues from 17.3 down to $6.2 billion, would reduce the in state cost of supply from the four. $4.86 Down to $4.47 per thousand cubic feet, and then would reduce The Global delivered LNG price in 2033 from $9.07 down to $8.55 per thousand cubic feet.”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
0:22
Bert Stedman“I've heard the issue of a Graham several times as an anchor tenant. But my understanding for agrium that style of business they need low cost gas, not high cost gas. So I would be a little cautious with that one because this doesn't look like low cost gas.”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
1:02
Dan Stickel“that bill would have reduced total state revenues over life of project from 29.7 down to $22.5 billion and would have reduced municipal revenues over life of project from 17.3 billion down to just under $4 billion.”
Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 1, 2026 10:00am ·
0:37
Peter Micciche“I suggested the AVT. I am probably one of the few people in the state that has sat at every side of these tables, um, the industry side, the muni side, and the legislative side. And I like the fact that we share in the benefits when things are going well and share in some of the risk when they're not.”
House Finance, 5/29/26, 1:30pm ·
1:00
Josiah Patkotak“what I'm proposing is, versus fixing all the different variables at the tax structure level without the information from the inputs on how that tax structure looks, what I'm saying is I think it'd be more effective to allow that negotiation to happen between the borough and the producer”
House Finance, 5/29/26, 1:30pm ·
0:18
Neal Foster“it's possible that we could be bringing the Finance Committee, I think, back to Juneau for amendments.”
House Finance, 5/29/26, 1:30pm ·
0:59
Josiah Patkotak“it's our responsibility as elected officials and you guys specifically as representatives that we look out for the best interests of all of our communities and that the resources that we have to deliver, whether they're to market or to our residents, are equally shared by us all.”
House Finance, 5/29/26, 1:30pm ·
0:31
Josiah Patkotak“what the, the 2945 on the GTP would do, it would enable, um, uh, the buck stopping at the, uh, the producer, the state, and the North Slope Borough, um, at an administrative level. And I think that, that information sharing and understanding is important”
House Finance, 5/29/26, 1:30pm ·
1:06
Grier Hopkins“the spur line in this language as it is right now is— it's an eligibility requirement. If the spur line is not being permitted by the developer, by the time that they're getting constructed, they would not get access to the full tax break that is being debated”
House Finance, 5/28/26, 1:30pm ·
0:29
Matthew Kissinger“this is a contractual option, but it's not an obligation. This is very different than the model under the producers back when the state was a 25% payer. The state would have been subject to cash calls going forward, would have been subject to default provisions should they not pay into those cash calls. We don't have any of that structured into this.”
House Finance, 5/28/26, 1:30pm ·
0:54
Grier Hopkins“if we're forced to be taxed under the current language of the full 20 mills, it would add in the neighborhood of $500 per year to each local IGU ratepayer. That language is really important to give us the flexibility in that from that amendment to figure out a payment in lieu of taxes”
House Finance, 5/28/26, 1:30pm ·
1:01
Matthew Kissinger“Everything that we can needs to be tight, needs to be fiscally certain to the extent that we can make it so, and also needs to be helping us become more and more competitive so that we can get those other investors in and ultimately not be fully diluted in doing so”
House Finance, 5/28/26, 1:30pm ·
0:46
Matthew Kissinger“in addition to our developer, you know, ownership of 25% of 8Star Alaska, underneath that, as new investors come into the subsidiaries and equity is issued from those subsidiaries in exchange for capital, we will have the right to participate in that issuance of equity from a minimum of 5% up to 25%”
House Finance, 5/28/26, 1:30pm ·
0:49
Grier Hopkins“if Fairbanks had to pay for the spur line, then, you know, we should make sure that Anchorage pays for the Anchorage spur line, which would be everything south of Fairbanks. The joke might fall on deaf ears here, but the reality is if we have to pay for a $200 million line across 3,500 ratepayers in the Fairbanks-North Starborough area that gas would not come in economic for people to use. So that tariff being rolled in statewide, system-wide, in the language that is in there currently, is essential”
House Finance, 5/28/26, 1:30pm ·
0:37
Frank Richards“we're looking at ways now to potentially— because we know that cash is very tight within the state based on our budgets, that we're looking for ways to use in-kind contributions. And so you saw that there were new regulations coming out from the Department of Natural Resources for materials, in this case gravel, that could be provided to state corporation, meaning AGDC, that could provide to the project and get an equity position from that contribution”
House Finance, 5/28/26, 1:30pm ·
0:43
Grier Hopkins“The spur line also has a defined timeline in this language, which is very important. So we're not waiting a decade further, but we wanted to make sure that we, uh, or rather, we agreed with Glenn Farn that we don't want to necessarily constrain construction— define that we— the spur line must be built in order to get the tax by the time the main line— the tax break by the time the main line is turned on. So with that, we're working on permitting language.”
House Finance, 5/28/26, 1:30pm ·
0:48
Frank Richards“the original legislation that created AGDC gave AGDC essentially tax-exempt status should we have ownership in the project during construction. And then it was going to fall to the tax structure under 4356 for oil and gas property taxes. Now, the, the concept that is now in front of us with House Bill 381, this alternative volumetric tax, would— is really going to be based on the volumes of gas flowing out of the project.”
HFIN-260527-1330 ·
0:30
Will Stapp“I think it probably would have been helpful to give some sort of structure. What we have before us is a volumetric structure. I think it's totally fine because it helps de-risk the project to capital cost overruns. But I still don't see— I mean, it probably would have been helpful, I think, for members of the committee, for you guys, even though I know you were out doing other things, because I remember those discussions very well, to perhaps at least bring a little bit of a framework to us.”
HFIN-260527-1330 ·
0:43
Nicholas Fulford“the most significant learning, which we'll perhaps come on to, is that in offering these tax concessions for 10 years, it's kind of recognizing that with these very high capital projects, it is in that first 10 years that the economic boost given to the project by tax forgiveness is the greatest.”
SFIN-260528-0900 ·
1:06
Nicholas Fulford“the current property tax projection up until 2062 would amount to just over $23 billion of revenue, of which about a third would go to the state and about two-thirds goes to local communities along the line and affected host communities. The volumetric tax in— certainly in the original bill set at 6 cents comes to about $2.6 billion.”
SFIN-260528-0900 ·
0:46
Bert Stedman“what's not straightforward is 70% of 45, which is about $30 billion in debt, And a more realistic number, just dealing with some of the cost escalations, uh, is in the neighborhood of $60 billion, maybe over, because from what we understand, that, uh, construction and pipeline construction costs have escalated a little faster than inflation. So it's probably somewhere north of $60, but just using $60, that's a debt increase of $12 billion. $12 Billion is a big cash flow payment to meet in and of itself.”
SFIN-260528-0900 ·
0:37
Bert Stedman“just assume it's $60 billion, and at 70/30, that's $18 billion in equity. Somebody's got to put down $18 billion in cash. I would expect the guy that comes to the table with $18 billion, the guy with the gold makes the golden rules, is going to want a significant majority of the equity position or he won't put his $18 billion on the table, he'll go somewhere else. Therein lies a dilution problem or a challenge.”
SFIN-260528-0900 ·
0:41
Bert Stedman“we've talked about that 40, mid-40 range cost factor, and some of us believe it's complete nonsense, right? It's an old number that's not relevant, and we'll get into that when we get into our modeling in a couple of days. But if they do the, you know, 70% debt level, there is the government loan guarantees and backing that we need to to get an understanding for over the next several days what that entails. But my understanding from the federal folks that I've talked to, it's if you do 20 years, it's 20 years plus 3/8 on the government bond. If you do 30-year financing, it's 30-year government bonds plus 3/8.”
SFIN-260528-0900 ·
0:43
Jesse Kiehl“there's an ultimate cap on on what that tariff can be and it's imported LNG. Because the RCA is only ever gonna approve what's reasonable and necessary. And if, you know, the cost overrun example on slide 4 today were to hit an in-state 42-inch pipe with only in-state consumers, I worry that we have a half-built project and no chance of an approved tariff that could pay for the cost overruns.”
SFIN-260528-0900 ·
