Alaska Legislature: House Resources, 3/23/26, 1pm

ស្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រ ប្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រ ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ� ទ្ទ្ទ្ ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ� ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ

Sa.

Good afternoon. This meeting of the House Resources Committee will now come to order. The time now is 1:09 p.m. Monday, March 23rd, 2026 in Capitol Room 124. Members present are Representative Fields, Representative Colomb, Representative Hall, Representative Mears, Representative Prox, Representative Elam, Representative Sadler, Co-chair Representative Diebert, and myself, Co-chair Representative Freer.

Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business. Please take this time to silence your cell phones for the duration of the meeting. Thank you. I'd like to thank Cheryl Cole from Records and Renzo Moises from the Juneau LIO for staffing the committee today. Today in House Resources we'll hear an update on the Alaska LNG project from its developer Glenn Farn, and hold a hearing on House Joint Resolution 44, a resolution from the House Resources Committee related to the U.S. Small Business Administration's 8A

business development program. Originally on the schedule we had presentation from Glenn Farn first. However, we are going to hold the presentation for House Joint Resolution 44. It's a resources resolution.

This is the first hearing on this bill in House Resources. Presenting the bill will be Sarah Snowberger, staff to Co-chair Diebert. And we also have online and available for questions Nicole Borromeo, the president of the ANCSA Regional Association. Sarah, please join us at the testifiers table and begin your presentation. Sorry, I'll speak up.

Good afternoon co-chairs Freer and Deibert. For the record, my name is Sarah Snowberger. I'm the Chief of Staff to Representative Maxine Deibert. And today we are talking about House Joint Resolution 44,

which is about supporting Alaska Native participation in SBA 8A business development programs.

Um

So again, thank you um House Research's committee and thank you for letting me present this bill today. Um

House Joint Resolution forty four affirms Alaska's support for the ability of Alaska Native corporations and tribal entities to continue participating in the U_S. Small Business Administration eight a business development program.

The 8A program is a federal initiative that helps socially and economically disadvantaged businesses access federal contracting opportunities.

For Alaska,

this program has been a cornerstone of economic self-sufficiency, community development,

and workforce growth throughout our, especially our rural areas.

Congress created the Alaska Native Corporations through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, in 1971 to promote economic opportunity and self-determination.

Since then, both Anx uh A_N_C_s and tribal-owned businesses have built successful enterprises across many industries, including construction, energy, defence, healthcare,

information technology and more.

Participating in the 8(a) programme has created thousands of jobs for Alaskas, including veterans. In fact um

veterans

I have the biggest stake in 8A programs,

not just in Alaska, but in the entire U.S., and it's also especially good for residents of rural and underserved communities,

especially in Alaska.

The revenues created are reinvested in Alaska through shareholder dividends,

education,

job training programs,

scholarships,

cultural preservation,

health care,

and infrastructure development.

From time to time, there have been federal efforts to scale back or even eliminate the special provisions in the 8A program that have recognized the unique status of Alaska Native corporations'

tribal entities.

H.R.

44 sends a clear message from this legislature that Alaska stands firmly against those efforts.

This resolution orders the President,

Congress,

and the SPA to preserve and defend Alaska Native participation in the 8A program. It recognizes that it remains a clear and critical part of Alaska's economy.

An effective example of federal policy that works, supporting both community self-determination and lasting economic growth.

In short, the eight-a program works for Alaskan Natives, for rural communities and for our state's economy as a whole. H.D.R. forty four is about ensuring that successes continue.

Thank you, Madam Chairs. And I'm happy to answer any questions from the committee.

And like Co-Chair Freer reminded the committee.

Remember, we do have Nicole Borromeo from INGSA online to do some public testimony,

which I think will truly answer a lot of your questions, and then she'll also help me answer some questions from the committee. So with that, any questions or we'll go ahead and let Nicole speak.

Thank you, Ms.

Snobber.

Representative Sadler.

Thank you. I do have a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the first, Sarah,

Yeah.

you said that 8A is aimed at disadvantaged or Native corporations. I wonder if I could just get clarification as to whether the 8A program is specifically aimed at Native corporations or disadvantaged corporations or is the assumption that Native automatically equals disadvantaged?

Yeah, through the chair to Representative Sadler,

that's a really great question.

This particular resolution aims at really helping the Alaska Native corporations because they, in the state of Alaska, they are the ones that generate the most economic help and development that, like I said before,

helps with a lot of things like dividends,

especially to elders.

But I will say on the federal level, they are looking at, well,

they're looking at, the SBA is looking at all eight A business developments and they're digging through all of them, especially ones that make $20 million or more and making sure that there's no,

I guess in the past they've had some

Some businesses that they found were doing some criminal activity like, oh, I

don't know how to say the word, but anyways,

none of that was happening in the state of Alaska and especially none of that was happening.

through the the inkSaa Corporation. So um we just wanna make sure that when Congress is looking at all these aid a corporations, they um are supporting the ones that are working and are not criminally active.

Oh.

And a follow

Follow-up

question to the same. Perhaps the person with Alaska Regional Corporations might be better able to answer this, but my question is going to be where do the 8A contracts go to and

what is the financial status of the corporations and entities that do receive those contracts?

Yeah, if you don't mind I'd like to pass that

question

off to Nicole Borromeo.

And Nicole is on the line. Nicole, did you hear the question?

Good afternoon,

Chair Deiber. I did not hear the question. It's coming over a little muffled on my end if it wouldn't mind being repeated.

Great.

Representative

thank

Sadler.

you. Ms. Borromeo, this is Representative Sadler asking the question. My question generally goes to where are the 8A contracts going to in Alaska, corporations and entities owned by tribes, Native corporations. I'm just curious to ask the question if 8A is designed to help disadvantaged corporations, are the contracts indeed going to disadvantaged or frankly Native corporations that may have long ago exceeded the revenue and status and ability to perform

that might qualify them as disadvantaged.

I suspect you have an answer to that question.

Thank you for the question and through the chair.

Congress has designated ANC tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations as being economically disadvantaged on behalf of the citizens shareholders and citizens of state of Hawaii that they serve.

There are two types of firms who participate in the 8A program.

One of them are individual firms. These are the organizations that a disabled veteran.

veteran for example would start on his or own his or her own behalf the other type of entity is what we call entity-owned firms and this is a classification that federally recognized tribes Alaska Native corporations and Native Hawaiian organizations fall under and it was through Senator Stevens that a presumption of economic disadvantage for those entity-owned firms was established it has allowed ANC tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations

organizations to participate in federal contracting and to return those benefits back to their tribal citizens shareholders and other community-based organizations

So what?

Follow-up. I do, I do believe Ms. Borromeo might have a presentation.

If I could just hang my question out there in the presentation, may

I

ask it? And I understand Ms. Borromeo there are some national efforts on the national stage to ask questions about whether clearly successful Native corporations like ASRC or Sealaska, Doyon, Chugach, that they are successful no doubt to their skill and hard work, but is there any question as to whether the questions about 8A

are raised by these successful corporations still receiving 8A contracts as disadvantaged.

Yes.

Through the chair representative,

I'm not sure that I'm tracking exactly what you're asking.

Is there any question as to their disadvantage?

No, my question is, do you think that there's interest in the 8A contracts because 8A contracts are going to what are clearly successful and not really obviously disadvantaged corporations like some of the ones I mentioned? Is that the genesis of the concern nationally?

Thank you for that.

That is not,

in my opinion, the genesis of the concern nationally.

The genesis of the concern is misguided and based on the misunderstanding that somehow Alaska Native corporations or tribal or governments fall into diversity,

equity,

and inclusion and the administration's treatment of DEI.

Thank you.

With that, I think we'll probably move on with the presentation,

Ms. Bromio.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I don't have a presentation as much as I have prepared testimony,

if that's all right with you and the committee.

Okay, well then with that I will now open public testimony on House Joint Resolution 44.

And please proceed.

Ms. Borromeo.

Okay.

Thank you.

And good afternoon Coaches Diber and Frere and members of the committee.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide testimony today in support of House Joint Resolution 44.

As it may have been stated, my name is Nicole Borromeo and I have the distinct honor and privilege of serving as the president of the Inkster Regional Association.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with ARA,

our organization

represents the 12 Alaska Native regional corporations established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.

Our board is comprised of the presence of four CEOs of those 12 corporations.

The resolution before you reflects a fundamental economic truth.

AMC's Alaskan Native corporations are not only integral to the social and cultural well-being of Alaska Native shareholders,

but they are among the state's most significant private sector economic engines, directly employing thousands and supporting billions in economic activity that keeps our state vibrant. In 1971, Congress enacted...

Thanks, establishing the 12 regional corporations and more than 200 village corporations.

This structure,

albeit different than the lower 48,

was implemented to resolve aboriginal land claims while creating a private for-profit model designed to promote long-term economic self-determination for Alaska Native people.

AMC's are unique in the American landscape and potentially even across global businesses in that our private companies carry out a congressional mandate to advance the social,

cultural,

and economic well-being of shareholders,

descendants,

and communities.

Our AMC's are shareholder-owned institutions in which no individual owner profits disproportionately.

And finally,

AMC's return earnings broadly through dividends,

revenue sharing,

elder benefits,

scholarships and other investments in communities across the state.

While AMC's are congressionally mandated to benefit shareholders,

they also help power Alaska's economy.

Year after year,

AMC's rank among the top 10 companies in terms of gross revenue in the top 49 or less.

In 2022,

ANC regional corporations generated $13.5 billion in total revenue,

including $4.5 billion from Alaska-based operations.

Additionally, a substantial portion of ANC earnings are generated outside Alaska and brought home to our state economy through programs such as the 8A program,

reversing the economic model that has long characterized our state's territorial days.

Those important dollars circulate within our communities.

In 2022,

regional corporations spent $2.8 billion in Alaska on wages,

goods and services,

in addition to shareholder distribution,

revenue sharing,

charitable giving,

education and taxes.

Including direct,

indirect,

and induced effects,

Alaska Native regional corporations supported nearly $25,000 jobs,

excuse me, $25,000 Alaska jobs,

nearly $2 billion in wages,

and over $6 billion in...

statewide economic activity.

That represents approximately 6% of the state's employment and 7% of wages.

ANC supported employment exceeds total employment in several of Alaska's major industries,

demonstrating our role as pillars in the state's economy.

More than 70% of ANC shareholders reside in Alaska.

Dividends, wages,

and scholarships,

in addition to other elder benefits and the like, therefore flow directly back into Alaskan communities.

Since 1971,

regional ANC's have distributed over $5 billion in shareholder dividends,

including almost $320 million in dividends and $17 million in elder benefits in 2022 alone.

Under Section 7I of INCSA,

our corporations are required to share certain revenues across regions.

This amounted to north of $210 million in interregional revenue sharing in 2022,

and since 1971,

approximately $4.6 billion has been shared across the regions.

No other corporate structure in the United States requires companies to share revenues.

or by state laws.

This statutory framework is a manifestation of Alaska Native values and ensures equity,

shared prosperity,

and statewide benefits.

Congress has expressly authorized AMC and their subsidiaries to participate in the Small Business Administration's 8-A business development program.

This was done in recognition of federal procurement as a lawful and necessary economic development tool which some have called the missing link in ANCSA itself.

The aid aid program is used extensively by defense,

homeland security,

infrastructure,

and other mission critical agencies.

It helps reduce acquisition timelines,

it avoids protest related delays,

preserves government ownership of intellectual property,

and delivers high performing scalable solutions that improve taxpayer value.

Put simply,

AMPs provide value to the federal government and to American taxpayers.

The statutory 5% ceiling for small disadvantaged business contracting confirms that the 8A program is a limited and targeted procurement tool,

leaving at least 95% fully open to all competitors.

Small disadvantaged companies in the 8A program compete in the federal marketplace.

They must meet performance standards,

undergo extensive audits, and maintain strong performance ratings.

Continued contract awards are based on mission success and performance excellence.

Moreover, merit-based hiring and performance excellence are operational necessities.

Mission readiness,

public safety,

and long-term economic stability depend on recruiting and retaining highly qualified professionals across disciplines and backgrounds.

AMC success is built on performance.

HDR 44 sends a clear message and sees our foundational contribution to our economy.

They are revenue importers,

they are lawful and mission critical federal partners,

and their earnings circulate directly back into Alaska communities.

Our corporate model promotes shared prosperity rather than concentrated private gain.

Supporting HDR44 affirms statutory law, economic reality,

and the measurable contributions of ANCs to the state of Alaska and to the national interest. Thank you for your consideration.

I respectfully urge your support of HDR44, and I'm happy to take questions.

Thank you Ms. Romeo. It looks like representatives. Oh, okay.

Anybody else?

Are there any other questions from committee members? Representative Prox?

Yes, thank you. Through the chair,

Ms. Romeo.

Several years ago, I think maybe even eight or ten years ago, there was a senator, I believe she was from Mississippi, was critical of the Alaskan Native corporations and her allegation was some of them were serving...

I think the term she used was a shell corporation and they're subcontracting to other corporations that were essentially taking the vast majority of the money and leaving little to the corporation itself. Are you familiar with that brouhaha?

through this here guest representative very familiar with that brouhaha that was Senator Claire McCaskill out of Missouri and if I may her focus on ANC participation in the 8-8 program was

Again,

driven by misunderstandings and limited situations on bad actors.

And those bad actors have been booted out of the program through extensive regulation at the federal level, through the Small Business Administration themselves.

And our ANC's are among the best compliant and the most cost effective and efficient contractors that the federal government relies on year after year.

year after year,

especially in terms of supporting the warfighter.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, follow-up, I guess.

Is there an official response or whatever to the senator's allegations? I didn't follow up on it way back when, but is there an official response to that?

Through the Chair, yes, Representative.

There was a number of government accountability office reports issued.

Several of those reports found deficiencies within the SBA itself in terms of the manner in which it was administering the program and reforms were implemented to make compliance easier on the federal agency itself and since those reforms have been implemented.

since it was implemented,

the SBA 8A program has been a model of effectiveness and efficiency throughout the federal government.

Most of the contracts,

despite popular belief, are not awarded on a sole source basis, but they are highly competitive and federal contracting officers like to use the 8A program because of the track record.

that contractors within the program have,

including AMC.

And if if that's available, I think it would be helpful to send the reports or the links or whatever to the committee so that we can substantiate our position.

Thank you, Representative Prox.

Uh next in the queue I've got Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Romeo, you know, clearly Native Corporations in Alaska are making the 8A program a success for their shareholders and for the state's economy. They're following the rules and have established a clear record and a clean record, and I appreciate that. And I do support and understand and support the intent of the 8A legislation and the program, and clearly it's important to you, you know the history of it. So I do have a question for you, is there any data that shows

what the total value of 8A contracts that have come to Anchorage, pardon me, ANC, I was abbreviating Anchorage Alaska Native Corporations since the 8A program started in the late 70s.

And to the chair, to the representative,

that's a good question.

I don't know that the data has been distilled to that level.

We just have high-level benchmarks of activity available through the different annual filings.

Even through the chair,

even a rough idea,

any metric at all would be helpful.

Through the chair to the representative,

no,

I don't have that data available.

Where might we look to find that?

It would seem to be a good data point for arguing the benefit of 8A is to know the total value that has come to the state, but if you don't have it, if you could point me to where I could find it, that'd be great. If not, I'll respect that.

Thank you Representative Sadler.

Probably not.

Are there any other questions for Ms. Romeo while she's on the line?

Seeing and hearing none, it is our intent to

move this out of committee. So with that Co-Chair Dibert, do you have a motion?

At ease.

Back on record in House Resources. With that I will close public testimony.

Co-Chair Dibert, do you have a motion?

Yes, Co-Chair Freer, I move House Joint Resolution 44, Work Order 34-LS 1588\N from committee with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations.

Is there any

I object.

Okay. Would you like to speak to your objection?

Yes, thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

Yep.

Where does this go from here? Is there another committee that evaluates

Uh let me double check really quickly.

Oh.

No, this is the final committee of referral.

Well in that event I think it would be helpful to get the information that we were talking about earlier to substantiate this. So that it is attached to the resolution.

Okay.

Can we wait for that or should we

How do we make sure we're going to get the information in time?

Representative Fields.

Hmm.

Through the chair to Rep. Procs, I think it'll be fine to get it before it hits the floor, and if any further refinements are needed, we can do that.

Just

Okay.

my personal opinion.

Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um this uh bill was introduced as a committee bill about a week ago. Um I'm sure there was consulpation with some of the members of the committee. I did not get consulted. It's kind of coming to us quickly and heading out quickly. And uh I think there's some fair questions. I'm not sure there's any deadline or any timeline that has to be sped through, but uh the chance to get some answers to those questions I would appreciate as well.

I think you you're more than welcome to if you have any further questions you could send them and we can put them together and distribute them to committee members, but

But would it come to be along with the written testimony from Mrs. Burmail?

Uh we can request her written testimony.

Please do, thank you ma'am.

Am.

Representative Colomb.

Thank you, Chair. Can I ask a question to the sponsor? I noticed that Pete Hegseth is on here, Department of War. Why is he included in the letter?

Department of War.

Why is he included in the letter?

Yeah, through co-chair Freer to Rep. Colomb, he recently made some comments

on the record, I can get you those exact quotes, but

he had something along the lines of it being the longest serving DEI program that he wanted to get rid of. I'm not speaking his exact quote, I wish I had it up in front of me, but I will I promise I'll get that to your office.

Okay and follow-up?

Follow-up, is that because there's defense contracts involved? Is that why he's even saying anything, because I was looking I just

thought I'd go the Small Business Administration.

Yeah, you are correct. 8A is from underneath this program. He correct.

Alright, thank you.

And then just to answer Rep. Procs and Rep. Sadler's questions, I am more than happy to get that information for you. I know Rep. Procs, you are interested in the Missouri

reports that came out about those comments and I can get that to you. And Rep. Sadler I know Miss Borromeo didn't have the answers right away, but I will do my best to get the math together and get it to you as soon as possible.

Representative Sadler?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. I would like to be able to vote to pass this through. I don't think the questions are unreasonable. I'd like to be able to vote with all the information at hand and in hand. So surely everything can be done a little bit later, but this is the committee, the only committee, so before it goes to the floor it might be appropriate to have that information at hand before we vote to pass it on to the floor.

Noted, Representative Sadler. Um however we are going to proceed with the vote. Um do you maintain your objection?

Oh.

Is there further objection?

Come.

Okay. Well seeing no further objection, House Joint Resolution 44 passes from committee. Thank you Ms. Snoberger for

Okay.

presenting and to Miss Borromeo for joining us today. And we'll take a brief at ease while we transition.

Alright, we are back on record in House Resources. Our next presentation today we have in the room to present on the gas line. We've got Adam Prestige, President of Glenfarn Alaska LNG, Mark Begich of Compass North Group. Gentlemen welcome to House Resources. Please come to the testifier table, put yourself on record and begin your presentation.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair.

Before I begin, this is Adam Prestige, I'd like to ask permission to invite Matt Kissinger from the Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation to join me at the table.

Absolutely.

Madam Co-Chair

members of the committee, it's an honor to be here with you this afternoon. It's a pleasure to be giving an update and talking about the Alaska LNG project and the tremendous opportunity that is in front of us and the progress that has been made.

I'll start by giving an introduction of myself as well as my colleagues here before getting into the presentation, but briefly I am the President of Glenfarn Alaska LNG. I oversee all of Glenfarn's activities in the state of Alaska, most importantly the Alaska LNG project, including the pipeline and the LNG export facility. I'll turn it over to Matt Kissinger.

Hello, I'm Matt Kissinger. I'm the Commercial Director for the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation and the Commercial Director for the uh Alaska LNG Project. Uh long time Alaskan, uh live in Anchorage, went to UAF and uh had the benefit of working overseas on a number of very large pipeline projects similar to this.

Madam Co-chairs, Mark Begich. I work on behalf of the administration and for the last five years, along with AGDC via Brownstein Hyatt which then Northern Commerce Group is a subcontractor with them on the gas line project. I'll say a few quick words if it's okay and then these two will carry on with a much more detailed presentation that you're going to see here. First, it is a unique project, unique times. All you have to do is

turn on the news any given second and you'll see the value of projects that involve energy.

This project has been worked on for multiple years. This is a moment in time that a lot of things are just combining in this last literally the last six months to a year.

A lot of work has been done to get us to where we are today. If you would have asked me a couple years ago where this project would be, I'd say it's maybe a 10, 20% opportunity. Today, based on all the information, everything from the international impacts, all the items that they'll walk through that have been hurdles that have been overcome, this is probably in my view an 80% plus project. And I'm a tournament poker player, so I'd go to Vegas on those odds any day. And I think you're seeing a combination of people

but when you see someone like me working with the governor that we opposed each other in election,

uh we see this as an incredible project that will move Alaskan to multiple generations. There are moving parts every day. So as you hear information today, uh and I know the chair and the co-chairs are interested in having multiple hearings, which we're very excited about having because it's important to keep you as ap as up to speed as possible, because you'll see changes rapidly as this project continues to develop.

We'll make ourselves available after this hearing at any time that any member of your committee or anyone in the legislature has detailed questions that we can't answer today or any question that you want some elaboration on. So I'll just pause and I'll let these two and then I'll probably interject throughout.

Thank you. Adam.

Thank you, Mark.

So what sits in front of us right now and in front of uh the state legislature is an incredible opportunity to develop and lead one of the most important infrastructure projects in the entire world world right now. Uh I believe that when Glenn Farns stepped into this project a year ago and I believe it more than ever now considering what we're seeing uh in global energy markets with the conflict in the Middle East.

least. Uh not only is it one of the most important opportunities and projects in the world, it is a project that is very ready to go forward. Glenn Farns stepped into the ownership of seventy five percent of the project in a joint venture partnership with you, with the state of Alaska, uh three hundred and sixty days ago. So it was March twenty eighth. Uh coincidentally as you as you might recall, as we've talked before, uh the documents were signed in the U_S_ Embassy in Tokyo.

Gil, we're now coming up on the one year anniversary of that date. I'm incredibly proud of the work and the tremendous progress that we've made on the entire project, uh again in partnership with A_G_D_C_ and the state of Alaska.

In this presentation today we'll talk uh about a few things. One will give a reminder of some of the core elements of this project that make it so important, not only for the state of Alaska, but also for the United States and for the global energy economy. We'll also talk about the progress. What have we actually done in the last year? Where are we going from now? Uh and then lastly

We'll talk about what's happening in the world today uh that makes Alaska LNG more relevant than ever. And parti by that I mean particularly talking about LNG markets, uh the closing of the Straits of Hormuz and what that means for the the uh unique uh and really unrivaled product that is being sold by Alaska LNG.

So

W when we look at this project and we look at first and foremost what is it benefit for Alaskans? Why have Alaskans cared about commercialising gas from the North Slope for nearly fifty years?

As you know, as we all know, the state of Alaska has spent a lot of money in various forms uh pursuing and d developing this project over a number of decades uh and it's got great importance. First and foremost is energy security for not just Alaskans now, but for decades and decades to come.

That term energy security could not possibly be more important or more relevant. And if you need any example or any if you have any question

about the reality that energy security can be challenged and lost, you can just look at the major events of the last few years. I'll give a couple examples. A war in Russia, a war in Europe uh led to the the shutting down of pipelines from Russia to all of Europe. Europe lost a se almost all of its natural gas supply uh literally overnight.

That plunged the entire continent continent into a an energy security emergency. And the the entire continent of Europe had to take drastic measures to replace their natural gas from other places including especially the United States in order to make sure that their heaters stayed on during the winter, that their man uh that their factories didn't all shut down, that they didn't lose their industry. That same type of thing

We face the same type of challenge right now with the Straits of Hormuz being closed. The Straits of Hormuz is a way that the Qatar LNG project exports uh the one of the largest exporting the largest exporting country in the United in in the world exports uh very significant volume of LNG to numerous Asian buyers and we'll talk more about that. Right now those cargoes, that natural gas, that energy supply is completely cut off. And so anyone that counted on

That natural gas to fuel their factories, to fuel their power plants, to heat homes, that's gone. So that energy needs to come from somewhere else, and literally LNG, natural gas buyers, national utilities are out finding other solutions,

competing in the market. That's resulted in very high LNG prices right now and is causing real chaos in global markets.

And that kind of thing uh can happen anywhere. Uh it can happen here in Alaska where the cook inlet demand uh the cook inlet supply is is is declining and nearing uh the the termination of that that field being a reliable resource. And unless this pipeline gets built and carries down the natural gas on the north slope to south-central Alaska south-central Alaska will face a challenge se

s of energy security for for a long time to come. So not only does this guarantee energy security, it guarantees low-cost energy. The Al the Alaska LNG Project is the only solution that has the possibility to bring down energy costs for Alaskans long term.

there are other solutions being discussed. We've talked about you've heard people talk about long-term LNG imports, uh many different things. This is the only way to significantly bring down the cost of energy for Alaskans to a level that is about as low as uh as anywhere else in North America and really open up the opportunity for economic growth and development and expansion for Alaska.

Beyond the macro-economic impacts, this project will prit will result in more gas production. Uh it will create a commercial outlet for natural gas produced and sold on the north slope. That will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in annual state taxes and royalties.

it will also uh be a very large construction project. And that construction project to c to construct an eight hundred mile pipeline will require uh at least seven thousand construction jobs as well as hundreds of jobs once the pipeline is fully in operation. That construction effort

not only produces jobs, but produces billions of dollars of direct and indirect economic benefits because of all the construction activity uh and economic result uh act activity that results from that construction process.

Lastly, the

not lastly, excuse me,

One of the benefits of having incredibly low energy is the opportunity to bring more and more industry into the state of Alaska. And I firmly believe that completing this pipeline will create the opportunity for an industrial renaissance for Alaskans, for for mining and resource development, for data centers to be built in Alaska.

The this market is very well suited uh with low-cost energy

To deliver a lot of industrial solutions and opportunities to grow revenue to the state, to create more jobs, uh and and more opportunities for Alaskans. Finally, natural gas is cleaner than a lot of other fuels that are being used in Alaska right now, whether it's diesel or or fuel oil or wood or coal uh there are numerous places throughout Alaska where using gas uh as opposed to those other fuels

will dramatically result in lower c C_O_ two emissions and cleaner air for for everyone around.

Thank you. Before we proceed, I just want to let the record reflect that we were joined by Representative Eischeid as well in the audience. So thank you.

Thanks.

Anything you want to add?

No.

That's okay.

Do you want to do questions during the presentation or

Absolutely.

Okay.

However you prefer, madam co-chair.

Okay. Representative Mears had a question.

Thank you through the chair. First bullet, energy security for generations, what are we looking at for a lifespan of the project and supply?

At least 50 years.

Follow up? Uh thank you through the chair to follow up. Um we're

always looking at how long projects last and we know that the supply curves or production curves for oil and gas they go up and then they go down pretty quickly over time.

Fifty years is a long time to project for what our oil industry will look like.

There's a lot of promise for development right now.

How tied is this the gas development to our oil industry if we're not successful with exploration if we're on decline curves?

does this end if oil does.

So what I can tell you is we are signing contracts and we're negotiating contracts, and we are structuring this project to have a contractual term of at least 30 years. And so no matter what happens in terms of the growth of additional development on the North Slope, we're signing contracts for 30 years of supply.

So we know that we are going to have a contractual promise that that'll be there on the North Slope right now. There's a significant amount

of proven developed reserves. As you all know, it's produced on a daily basis and re-injected into Prudhoe Bay. That number is potentially significantly larger. And so by some estimates there are 200 trillion cubic feet of gas on the north slope. I've seen some estimates that are as much as 400. That makes it one of the largest gas fields in the entire world. So there is a

significant runway. Personally, I think 50 years is conservative in terms of how long we could be producing gas for this pipeline.

Thank you. I've um developed quite the queue, so I've got representative fields, representative Cologne, representative Sadler, and then representative Prox.

Thanks to the chair. I was hoping you could elaborate on energy costs and talk about price points for in-state supply and then how the price would go down

Thanks Mr.

Chair.

Sure.

presumably

Absolutely.

if there are exports at certain volumes.

Yep. I'm very happy

You have

a

slide on that, right?

I do.

Yeah.

Let me

Oh, sorry.

just

get to slide nine.

So I don't have firm dollar numbers here on this slide because there are some things that are still being negotiated and ultimately will go to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska to approve. But what I can show you is a model and a slope of how we expect the price to be based. At the start of the pipeline we

will be selling gas to the major utilities and consumers of gas at a price that is

competitive with current prices out of the Cook Inlet and competitive with LNG import prices as they were a month ago. I can tell you they're very competitive against LNG import prices right now. It's so significant because when you look at the cost of gas on the pipeline,

you must compare it with the alternatives, which in the long term is really only imported LNG.

And LNG because of the crisis in the Middle East right now has dramatically spiked in price. And so if the state of Alaska were relying on LNG imports for its energy right now,

the price would be very significantly increased based on what it was a month before that. And that increase would be borne by the ratepayers, by the industrial consumers. There's not really a cushion for that when you're importing LNG from global markets. As you can see the row on the bottom there indicates the potential volume flowing through on the pipeline and what it shows is that as we increase

the volume on the pipeline of gas that is transported on the pipeline, you're basically spreading out the cost of the pipeline across a broader, a larger number of gas molecules being transported. And so you see a tiered step-down structure where by the time we get to full usage on the pipeline,

we've

brought the price down very significantly to where it is well below what is coming out of the Cook Inlet right now, below what's coming out of the Cook Inlet historically, and again resulting in the lowest energy gas cost for Alaskans, which would be the lowest cost of anywhere in North America.

Follow-up, Representative Fields?

Through the chair, does the negative 37.5% mean that you're committing that the first customers would see a 37.5% reduction in the price that they pay once you go past 500 million cubic feet per day?

Yes.

Or is that for the next incremental customer?

No, it's an adjustment for the first customers that come in. So the customers, the utility customers that will sign up for the pipeline

are signing up with a commitment that as more volume comes on to the pipeline, as more people are buying gas off the pipeline, their price will drop gradually over time.

Can I ask one more follow-up?

Follow-up.

Through the chair, what is the time frame when you might share that price or a range that you are negotiating presumably with Enstar as the largest utility?

So Representative Fields, through the chair, I can't give you an exact time frame, time date,

but I can tell you very soon, within the next couple of months maximum. Any contract that we sign with Enstar or other utilities that are RCA regulated will need to be submitted to the RCA. They will be public documents, they can be reviewed and analyzed by anybody that wants to, and so that price, that price step down will be extremely transparent in black and white letters.

Thank you, Representative Cloan.

Yeah, Representative Fields asked my question, so I'll pass.

Excellent. Representative Sadler.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you. Just a question before I get to mine. So let me go back,

go back,

I'll go back,

go back.

sorry,

Oh god.

okay.

Okay.

Slide nine. The 37.5% decrease, the 50% decrease, what's the baseline? Is that current per MCF prices? What's the baseline there?

The baseline is where we anticipate, and again I haven't put a price on there because we're still negotiating that with our counterparties here in Alaska. But it is a price, as I said,

that is competitive with what's coming out of the Cook Inlet right now and very competitive against LNG import alternatives.

So to clarify, so that's the baseline, that's the first price you think you're going to be offering.

Correct.

Very good, okay. Now to my question then, kind of as a ground clearing question, whenever I talk to constituents about this, I do encounter the occasional cynicism. The grizzled 'I've seen this movie before.'

Yep.

So I want to give you the opportunity, any of the three gentlemen who would like to dispel that.

How is this project different and how would you reassure the people of Alaska that this process is different?

And how.

I know about

Well,

one. Make

I'll

sure.

give a quick it uh I'll give a quick one, but it there's a lot of really interesting components here. First off, um all the permits are in hand. Second, um you have all litigation both by the last administration, presidential administration, uh the Biden administration and the Trump administration uh have been c a team player on this. So all litigation that is been out there is gone.

Uh the third thing is the right of ways in hand. The fourth thing that I think is important when you look at a project this magnitude, it wasn't until in m Matt will know the exact date, several years ago before all the gas was actually available.

too important.

Frankly, all the projects we've seen, you know, thirty years ago, twenty years ago, you couldn't really do, because the gas was not available because it required the regulatory com the regulatory process to re-inject and utilise it for the highest and best use, which was oil production. That has changed,

Okay.

and that has changed the dynamics of this. And then of course, as Adam talked about, uh the international components have dramatically changed where we position ourselves in the marketplace. And keep in mind, when

And when people do these contracts, even though people might say right now, well, that's only a short-term issue in Middle Eastern Russia,

but this is when they sign long-term contracts. So once you lock in, you're locked in for the long haul, not two years, three years,

five years. You're locking in for 20 plus. So the value is very unique here.

And frankly, you had two presidential administrations supporting this project,

which when you think of those two, there was nothing they agreed on. And this was the pro

the project they agreed on. So a lot of the federal stuff has been cleared. Matt probably has some additional

Yeah, this is Matt Kissinger for the record, uh Representative Sadler through the chair uh

Just really taken off from uh what Senator Begich mentioned. So starting in 2015 is when the first Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission off take uh regulations were provided. So before that you couldn't even off take gas from the slope. And there still is a historical perspective that oh if you take the gas out of Prudhoe Bay, you're gonna depressurize it. But again that work was done in 2015, BP, as uh as one of the working interest owners, along with Exxon, petitioned

for an even higher number of offtake. And it was somewhat uh tempered by one of the other working interest owners. But certainly they all three agreed. And the d and the dynamic modelling of Prudhoe Bay demonstrated that there was much more value in monetising the gas than in reinjecting it anymore. And I think, you know, just for the people listening to understand how much gas we reinject up there, I think everyone needs to really understand it. Every day we reinject eight billion standard cubic feet.

for

The that is all of the needs of Japan or alternatively that's all the needs of Germany. So it's an amazing amount of gas. And we're not taking all of it, we're just taking enough for this project, slightly over a third.

Moving forward in time, the next thing was really to do the pre-application and the frac permitting. And so this was another huge step. You couldn't build a project until you had a permitted project. And so AGDC kind of carried the ball forward during that period of time. But we are still banging our heads against the wall with respect to the structure. First we wanted the producers to build this, but the producers have the wrong cost of capital for a big project like this, and that's why they don't

don't own big infrastructure projects except where it helps them mitigate uh uh d uh political risk in other countries. But usually in the U_S_ they don't own big pipelines and big L_N_G_ projects. And that's the reason. Their investors are looking for the upstream kind of risk and reward. Investors in in infrastructure are more of like a lower risk lower return type of investor. Very different types. It's the developers then that step in and bring that other nuance to

once to it.

We tried to bring in developers for years, but the project was just too big as one big integrated project. So the next big step that changed everything was the phasing of it exactly. And we couldn't phase it before, 'cause you couldn't build a pipeline and get gas to South Central Alaska for eight dollars and fifty cents or whatever we were getting it

it out of quick inlet at the time but when hill core said no more firm contracts no more long-term firm contracts and we finally you know were able to swallow that pill that we we are going to import lng here it's different math and even the cook inlet prices went up to meet that math and so now we've phased it and by phasing it you're able to break this huge huge project into three very very very big projects but more along the size that have been

been done around the world. And so that was the final step. But then in attracting the likes of Glen Farn and then of course bringing in Glen Farn, someone very much aligned with the state of Alaska we feel aligned with our values and we'll talk about that. That was sort of the final step. So I hope that your

Yep.

your listeners do understand this is a very different project today than any of the other attempts that we've tried.

Thank you. I've got next in the queue, representative Prox.

Thank you. Through the chair, I think this might be to Mr. Baggett or Mr. Kissinger. Are you familiar with E.F. Hutton?

Yeah.

When E.F. Hutton spoke, people listened.

Yes.

When I speak, not so much so.

So I bring that up to just encourage you to really

increase the effort to reach out. There are people who are rightfully sceptical. They haven't had the opportunity to put a whole lot of thought into this, and it has been going on for forty years. So uh I'm sold, I think uh Glen Farm ha has um met expectations and even exceeded expectations as far as I'm concerned. I'm really impressed, but um

There is quite a bit of scepticism, rightfully so, that uh and and those questions are gonna have to be answered in order to move forward. Uh one of the biggest ones in Fairbanks, and this is probably for Mr Kissinger, um the Fairbanks spur line. I don't I didn't see that in your presentation.

Yep.

Can you help us understand a little bit better about how Fairbanks might fit into this?

Yep. Uh represent back to the chair. Uh we are working on multiple ways to address Fairbanks' needs. Uh first and foremost is electricity. So in phase one

Yeah.

Everyone has to understand, you know, even in Anchorage people's gas prices are gonna be going up. So phase one isn't the ultimate relief and it's not the ultimate destination, but we do want Fairbanks to begin feeling relief, you know, immediately. So even while the they're waiting for their gas demand in Fairbanks North Star Borough to grow somewhat organically, we wanna make sure we get the cheapest electricity possible.

And this is a real opportunity for the interior that we hope is not missed. Right now it's a blank canvas. This is the first time gas is coming to the interior. You have very old, depreciated power plants already existing. They're not that efficient. So you really have the opportunity to rethink the electric power grid of the interior.

And meanwhile we are looking at different structures of different ways to do rates that would ensure that Fairbanks does have uh some relief.

on the front end and then ultimately enjoys uh the old you know the the the path that we're all on to the phase two the very low prices that Adam mentioned.

Mm-hmm.

Representing Prex, let me through the chair just add to that. And in first to your first question, I agree with you. A lot of people out there wonder is this the moment, is this not the moment.

Hmm.

And part of our job is, and I say collectively because at the end of the day we all benefit if this project goes the way we see it going, not only today but long term. And that is we we have to be an echo chamber.

Every day we should be talking about the benefit to this project. Every day we should be talking about just as you just heard in a very short kind of here's the issues when Representative Sadler asked those questions bam, bam, bam. Lot of people don't hear that is because they still hear will it really happen? Well,

Mm-hmm.

there's no better time with the dynamics, good, bad, or indifferent, however you feel politically or not

We have a place in time,

no different than when we were when we built the oil pipeline.

Mm-hmm.

World crisis,

Alaska came to the forefront.

World crisis one more time with Middle East, we have our moment.

When you have 20 to 25 percent of that LNG capacity wiped out and may not be back online for three to five or six years,

this is our moment. The question will be,

are we going to grab it?

Are we going to watch it go by or are we going to grab it? Yes, we'll have some bumps in the road, figure this all out, but at the end of the day, Alaska's in a very, very unique position that we have not been in ever,

in my opinion. We kind of set the table over the last many years.

Now it's our time. And so it really is we hear you and a lot of you'll start seeing more and more, you've probably seen some op-ed pieces, more on the radio, more people talking about it. The co-chair is offering this opportunity to be here and multiple times more than likely gives the chance for the public to understand the project more.

Yep.

And that's that's our goal.

Well, good. Like I say, we need to work that. And then we Alaskans need to start thinking about what can we do to help this. Yes, get the best deal we can, I get that. But what can we do to keep this moving forward and reduce some of the risks? Because if we don't have a pipeline, we don't have anything.

Okay.

Madam Chair, can I uh

Taxes are nothing off of it.

It thank you. And just a reminder, if you could please put yourself on record. Uh we've got similar voices

Oh, thank you. Sorry.

And help. Help records. Mr. Begich.

Madam Chair, one thing on the Fairbanks piece, it is very apparent to us. I mean, one of the things that AGDC did very early on when we started working with them was they put there was a moment of an EIS study of the military bases to convert

from what they're doing now to natural gas.

AGDC put together comments, which is very rare for an agency to do that, to put a comment into the federal record to encourage the military to move those military bases to gas. Why? One, it's good from the clean energy component, but it's good business for Alaska. And it gives us an opportunity to create a greater and bigger customer. So Fairbanks not only has the organic growth of the residential customer, there's these what I would consider industrial use. Your Fairbanks hospital up there has converted back to diesel off and on because it's cheaper.

Right now

Mm-hmm.

you're paying 25 bucks a unit up there.

So we, and frankly, when I was mayor, when we had municipal light and power, we loved hospitals. Why? Because they ran 7/24 and used up a lot of gas, and we own a chunk of Beluga. So in this situation, the benefit of this and figuring out what to do with Fairbanks also is a small piece of the puzzle, but one that's critical for Fairbanks long term.

And we think there's a place to play in this arena, as

Matt laid out, but also we're looking at all the other pieces around it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Representative, I've got Representative Mears, Representative Sadler, and then Representative Colomb.

Thank you, through the chair. I think you'll hear pretty universally through the building that

there's a recognition that a fully developed operating gas pipeline is a benefit to Alaska,

but we need to get into the details about how we get there to make sure that individual communities or our ratepayers and our

who are our constituents don't get left behind along the way, as well as our Alaskan companies.

I'm going to set aside the electricity issue for the moment. There's more we can get into that, but now's not the time for that.

But I wanted to get back to Slide 9, since we started there.

So if we're looking off to the very left here,

we've got 500 mmcfd. So that is, if I've done my math right,

for our

current Alaska demand, we say 70 BCF, which is just under 200 on that. So if we're looking at that price going down there, we're definitely into export as we get there. But our demands don't start as soon as there's a facility available. The Hilcorp contract doesn't end until 2033 with Enstar, which is our largest customer for natural gas of that 70 BCF.

Yes.

That's correct.

Fairbanks probably isn't included in those early days because of the spur, because of the uptake. We had Interior Gas Utility in front of us last week. I've had conversations with them before. There's 15 to 30% uptake of customers that have a line going in front of their house, much less having the rest of the infrastructure developed. It's going to take time for the electric utilities prior to 2033

as their contracts are ending, as we're doing storage, as we're doing other things. So like our switch doesn't automatically turn on. Is that a single rate until we get to 500? Or like how does that cost get borne out when you've got fewer units in the early years?

Is that really straight before we get there?

Through the chair, the one thing I'll say is the assumption of 500 mmcf per day does not require exports.

We believe that as gas is available on the pipeline, there will be potential for more industrial users to come online. And so if you look at Enstar is obviously a very significant user. There are quite a few electric cooperatives that would consume gas. There are multiple mines

There are industrial facilities that have been closed and mothballed for a period of time because gas became too expensive. There are

like we've mentioned potential data centers who are very interested in coming to Alaska. You put all of those things, all those, all that demand together and you could very well find yourself in a situation where the domestic only consumption of gas is greater than 500 million units a day. So that's, that's the starting point. And then again, going back to the question, we are

certainly aware

of the existing contractual profile for the potential buyers that we're interacting with and we recognize that there won't be just an instant on switch for the full flow of gas. But that's built into the contractual structure that we're negotiating with them. It's built into how we expect to pay for the capital costs of the pipeline. And so we're planning on that kind of roll

ramp off ramp on of gas supply.

Follow

Follow up.

Thank you through the chair. So I'm going to push back on that a little bit. Our current is less than 200, and that's, and we don't always get there to the 70 BCF a day. Donlin's another 50. That's less than half of the 500. And I will bring electricity into it. Are you working with the Rail Belt Reliability Council and the Integrated Resource Plan that's being developed? Because that gets into electricity. So that they're working on that now, that's

in just over a year from now. And that has to do with how we're developing our electrical generation, and not even to mention the transmission issues that we've got getting from Fairbanks down to Homer and along the Rail Belt.

There's a lot of work that we need to strengthen that infrastructure. We can't just jump into these opportunities. That work needs to be done too. We cannot assume that we're going to have those demands if those other projects aren't being developed.

And in conjunction with this.

Through the chair, Glenn Farn isn't directly working with that group on that electric study. I will say we are working directly with the presidents and CEOs of all of the electric utilities. And so there is certainly that collaboration and that awareness of the need to have long term planning that is incorporated into how we build and supply gas on this pipeline.

Thank you. Next up in the queue we've got, it doesn't appear that we are going to get through your presentation.

Just two slides.

I've got Representative Sadler, Representative Colomb, Representative Fields.

Thank you, Manager. And frankly, having looked ahead to the slides, a lot of information I have seen before and I appreciate you being here. I just want to put on the record clearly, I

support this pipeline project. I hope it works. I want to do everything I can to make it work. And to the point raised about the geopolitical time is now, those who remember that the TAPS line, the oil pipeline, was a response to the OPEC oil embargo. We took advantage of an international geopolitical situation, got our pipeline and have gotten generations of prosperity. I understand this gas line will not bring that same degree of prosperity, but it will be certainly a good thing. And again, we have slides ahead of us and some stuff I've seen before, some I

haven't. But the chance to have you here before us, the details. We have a couple of pieces of legislation before us, not in this committee yet, I'll recognize, but the governor's property tax versus volumetric bill is laid out in finance. And Senator Giesel's bill about the different structure for gas line monitoring are also in play. I don't know if you have a chance or have a plan to bring up those discussions, but those are kind of the issues I would like to hear

Yes.

the folks talk about.

Representative Sadler, we do have that bill in this committee

and we're hearing it on Wednesday.

Here with it? Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Are they going to be here?

Well, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Very good. And the governor's bill? Oh, the governor's bill or the Senate

Yes.

bill?

The governor's bill.

The governor's bill.

Okay. The Senator Giesel's bill.

Does Glenn Farn have any reaction to Senator Giesel's bill to change the way the gas line project is managed and information is communicated about it?

Look at me, I'll I'll be happy to take it at um this marked baggage for the record. Um the again talking on behalf of the administration and their response, you know the bill is not necessary.

The the elements of the bill are pretty extensive in the sense of uh it's almost like everything related is thrown into that bill, from taxes to some other items. Um we understand the desire by the committees to have more information available. And that's why we're here today. Yeah, and we'll be here more than once. Uh and we look forward to that. And it's because for all the reasons that you started to bring up, and that is the public needs to know more as well.

more about it. It is a private development deal. This is very unique because before, it was a partnership with Exxon, you you you know, you talked about the risk. Um the state had a lot more risk, risk of construction over cost overruns, risk of capital, risk of many things, and this arrangement, it's a developer that takes those risks. And therefore, the conditions are a little bit different until the state decides to put cash investment into it. So

W I can only refer you to the response by the administration on it, that we don't think it's necessary for what is needed to move this project forward for the long-term benefit of the state.

Representative

Yeah, I briefly,

So

Titus.

go ahead.

only.

Oh

Chair, if I may add,

Please state your name for the record.

Yep, Matt Kissinger for the chair uh for the record, uh Representative Sadler through the chair. Um just to add on to uh what Senator Begich was mentioning, we have um th that that bill talks a lot about transparency. And uh they had Gaffney-Klein presenting on that bill and they went through a number of overseas jurisdictions and they sort of talked about the transparency and just

those jurisdictions. I've I've worked in many of those jurisdictions and I've worked in a lot of the jurisdictions that are framed the same exact way and

W

w what we see here is the exact same transparency that they have there. You have transparency between the developer and either a state-owned enterprise, a state agency, in our case it's Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation in Tanzania, it's the Tanzanian Petroleum Development Corporation. I mean it's exactly the same. And that's where the very deep transparency is and we feel that Glenfarne are being extremely uh transparent with us at AGDC.

Uh

the the question is, you know, how much of that goes directly to the legislative body when you do have a commercial private sector project that has to compete against other projects and where information can be valuable or an it can expose your vulnerabilities. And so we just have to balance that and so I hope that as we continue the conversation, it is recognised that uh Glenfarm come with really good values and

Mm-hmm.

uh transparency is one of

Is one of them.

To briefly

Hello?

I have to say, having sat around this table for a lot of years and was in your chair when we did a lot of the authorization for AGDC, I've heard a lot of these questions raised and answered and I'll say kind of for posterity that the AGDC Glen Farn deal is framed to meet the challenges of previous iterations of this and to answer questions about responsibility and risk and financing. And so we have tweaked this and now we have a deal where we're relying on the energy and innovation of the

private sector to try and make this happen. The state still does retain opportunity for equity investment. We still retain a seat at the table. We're going to be involved, but we have to respect, I think, the operations of private capital and private industry to make this thing happen. We could love it to death. I hope we don't do that. So I will stand back.

Thank you, Representative Sadler. Representative Colomb.

Thank you, Chair. So I guess anybody could answer this. This actually goes back way back to Representative Procs. So sorry, it took me a while to get to the queue. So I've been one of the biggest cheerleaders of the pipeline. I'm like, let's go. And when we talk about skepticism, you know what's not helping is that that FID keeps getting pushed back, right? So last year they're like, yeah, end of 25, yeah, we're going to do it beginning of 26.

And then I read in Pipe and Gas Journal that it's possibly 27 now. So can you guys give us any specifics or any clarity on why the FID keeps getting pushed back and what is happening to maybe get it sooner? I think that's the biggest hiccup for me is I'm hoping I want this, but it just keeps getting pushed back. And you guys have been in committee over and over saying, yeah, it's going to happen

here, it's going to happen now. I don't even know when it's going to happen now. What

I mean, I read 27, so I don't know if you want to clarify.

Representative Colomb through the chair, this is Adam Presser. I've never heard the 2027 date for the pipeline. That's not our view. We are pushing a much more accelerated timeline than that. What I will say is that this is an incredibly complicated project that has been attempted in various iterations for

literally decades,

Mm-hmm.

and in the year, in the less than a year since Glen Farn took over the lead developer role, we've progressed this project further than it has ever been at any point. I will say I totally respect and understand the skepticism. Anytime you're hearing about a vision or a concept for nearly 50 years without it being brought to fruition, that will lead to a level of skepticism.

What I will say in response to that,

Mm.

and what I will say to anyone that is trying to track and identify if this project is really going forward is to look at the actual results of what's happening on this project. I'll highlight a couple. The completion of a Class 2 FEED, and if you, a Class 2 FEED is a high level sufficient for financing the

That was completed in December of last year.

Look at and all g I p intend to walk through these in greater detail. Look at the sophisticated uh world leading energy companies that have publicly signed up and asked to buy volume from the Alaska LNG project. Look at the uh sophisticated partners that have joined with Glenn Farren and AGDC as strategic partners to help deliver the project. Those are tangible results that no matter how sceptical you might be, you can't discount.

out that some of the biggest and most capable companies in the world are putting their names and their dollars on the line because they also believe in this project. An F_I_D_ data is a challenging thing to forecast, that's very true. Um a lot of things are a little bit outside of our control because you're negotiating with with literally dozens of different counterparties at the same time, trying to land them all uh in a way that is timely and also uh economically successful for everyone involved.

um and so that's what we are that's what we're doing on a on accelerated basis right now.

Yeah, go ahead.

This is Matt Kissinger for the record. Representative Colon through the chair.

At AGDC we also would get frustrated seeing even seeing an FID date put out there knowing it would be quite a challenge. We understand developers have to do that in order to rally the people working on the project. So there are different

audiences when you put these dates out there, but we know that it hurts the credibility. What we are looking at is what are the puzzle pieces that are coming together to create an FID and those are well known, right? We need to have the upstream contracts,

downstream contracts, we need to have FEED done, need to have a pipeline builder lined up, we need to have all the construction companies lined up. You need the pipe itself lined up. And so we look at these puzzle pieces and we see that Glenfarne have put them in place a lot faster than we had expected. When we entered into the relationship with Glenfarne we targeted getting FEED done on the pipeline. So just phase one FEED by the end of 2026.

So that would be the end of this year.

They completed that a whole year earlier than we thought was possible.

And we were aiming for a Class 3 cost estimate, believing that that would be financeable. And they took it to a higher level which is Class 2,

which is extremely financeable level on the main line. So

I would just advise let's keep our eyes instead of on

the occasional FID date that someone might say. Keep your eyes on the milestones that are needed. These puzzle pieces

when they get locked into place, when you find out these gas sale precedent agreements have become definitive agreements with the upstream, same with the downstream, that's really how to tell when we're making progress and we hope to set the stage today for where we are and then come back each time and let you know what we've accomplished and what we've lined up to do with respect to

each one of those puzzle pieces and just focus on those.

Okay, follow up.

Follow-up?

So I've been totally aware it's a complicated project for sure. And it's obvious that you guys are making progress. My concern, I never expected FID dates or you're like, you guys were presenting those in committee. So that's

why you know when we see continually pushed off, we're like is this really happening? My understanding is up until recently the push off was really to find the buyers. And do you, so

where are you guys at with the buyers? I know there's some tentative agreements, but how many more buyers do you need?

Representative Colon, through the chair, if I can ask a clarification, are you asking about buyers of gas from

the pipeline

or of LNG from the LNG export facility

or both?

On the LNG export facility,

Okay, okay,

I'm sorry.

absolutely.

Sorry.

On the LNG export facility and the gas pipeline we're in a really exciting position, and if you'll allow me, I'm going to flip ahead to a slide here.

So these are the parties that have publicly signed agreements announcing their intention to buy LNG. If you add these up together, it's 13 million tons. As you'll know, the project is permitted for 20 million tons of annual export capacity. Because of the way this project is being paid for with project finance coming from banks and institutional investors, we need to have a reliable revenue stream

for 80% of the export capacity of the project. So we need to sell, in other words, 16 million tons of LNG to long-term committed customers. So right now you have 13 million tons here on this slide, and just bear with me for just a moment to talk through because these are all each very important.

The first one on the far left is CPC Taiwan. That's the national oil and gas company of Taiwan. They signed up to buy 6 million tons two weeks before Glenfarne

even came into the project as we were negotiating

and we went to meet them to introduce ourselves as we were kind of consummating the transaction.

6 million tons is an incredibly significant amount of LNG. It would be one of the largest, if not the largest LNG contract ever entered into by volume.

They're doing that because Alaska LNG is a special supplier, because they know that the Taiwanese know that if they buy a huge volume of LNG from Alaska, they are getting a commitment from the United States for their energy security which has obviously significant geopolitical ramifications in their relationships.

And they know that it can be delivered in a very straight shipping route from Alaska without going through any choke points. And so for the Taiwanese, again, the national oil and gas company of Taiwan, this is a very important strategic energy security transaction. And I can tell you they are just as committed now, probably more so now, than they were when they signed this agreement and publicly committed to it. I can tell you, in that signing ceremony in March of 2025,

the President of Taiwan stood there with Governor Dunleavy and said, I personally commit that Taiwan is going to follow through on this contract and make it a binding agreement. So they are very real. PTT, the next one for 2 million tons

is the national oil and gas company of Thailand. So an enormous company with a giant market cap, the ability to buy LNG from anyone they want to in the world, and for similar reasons to the Taiwanese, they contracted with Alaska LNG. You have JERA next. JERA is a LNG buyer and electric utility in Japan. They are the largest buyer of LNG in the entire world. Nobody buys more LNG and is more sophisticated as an LNG buyer

than JERA. And they chose to publicly announce, you can see the third picture there,

You've got the LNG buying team from JERA on the right. You've got Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright there in the photo. These are not only public commitments to buy, these are public commitments ratified and endorsed by ministerial ministers of energy on both sides of the transaction.

POSCO in Korea is one of the largest Korean conglomerates doing a huge range of industrial activities, including buying LNG. Tokyo Gas followed not long after JERA. They are a large LNG buyer and utility in Japan as well. And then in February,

we announced a deal with Total Energies. Total is unique on this list because Total is the only buyer here on this list that isn't buying for their own national consumption. They are a large - they do a couple of things in the LNG business. They buy and trade large volumes of LNG. They're also a developer of LNG projects, and so they've developed projects around the world, including working on a project in Mozambique. And so when you look at

why, you know, what would Total know when they come into this project? They know LNG markets, they know how to trade LNG, they know how to build LNG projects, and so they brought a sophisticated level

of investigation and knowledge to the project. And so having Total Energies step up for a 2 million ton purchase is a real validation. That's 13 million tons right there. I can tell you that we are in numerous discussions for an additional 2 to 3 million tons that would take us to the 16 MTPA volume. I'm fully confident that will be committed to customers in the next couple of months.

Just one short follow-up.

Follow-up repair.

Thank you for the thorough answer. That was really helpful.

You're very welcome.

A simple question. What does MTPA stand for?

That's a million tons per annum.

Per annum.

Yeah, per annum. So that's the industry term basically to measure a volume of LNG

and our sizes.

Thank you.

sizes, our total project.

And so you measure a project's capacity, a project's size by their export capacity. How many million tons per year is the facility.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Representative Fields. If you can remember what your question was.

I do. While I was waiting, but then I realized we're just going to jump around the slides, which is totally fine. So

and just before we get off that, so 20 million tons per annum is the same as 3.5 roughly BCF

per day. Is that okay?

Pardon me, pardon me, pardon me. Representative Fields. It's about 2.8 BCF per day.

Two point eight,

okay.

And so when we stepped into - Adam Presage for the record - when we stepped into our joint venture agreement with the state of Alaska, one of our commitments was to ensure that if there is a demand for gas in Alaska, we will always have

at least 500 million cubic feet per day available for Alaska consumption. So you

this is more of a - this is 20 million tons of.

Is closer to 2.8 BCF a day.

Got it. Thank you for the

You're

um

welcome.

clarification. So uh slide eight, please. Just going back to that slide.

Um I just hope that you could talk to us about your timeline for these different components of the project because I think we all refer to phase one pipeline but it seems like you all have made at least as much progress on the import-export facility here. It's listed separately.

They're not really separate projects, right? So could you give us a little more detail on how different elements of these projects are

Mm-hmm.

happening and the extent to which they are happening concurrently?

Certainly. So I'm going to give you Adam Presage, the chair, Representative Fields, I'll give you the long version of that answer if that's okay. The

joint venture between Glenfarne and the State of Alaska is called Eight Star Alaska LLC and that's a corporate entity that owns three different subsidiaries. Eight Star Alaska Pipeline, Eight Star Alaska LNG, Eight Star Alaska carbon capture.

And those are each different

phases or sub-projects all under the same ownership umbrella. And so we're able to develop each of them individually, we can finance them individually, we can progress them individually, but they're all part of the same enterprise. As you know,

when we looked at the project, we evaluated that one of the reasons the project had struggled, and by project I mean the aggregate Alaska LNG complex had struggled to go forward, is because of its size. And it takes an enormous amount of capital to take the entire project to financing in one transaction. And our observation, as the team at AGDC spent

years understanding, was that LNG buyers,

the partners I just listed on the prior slide, looked at the entire project and they saw a risk that said, we're not sure if we're really going to get this LNG from the export facility because we know you have to build a big expensive pipeline first. And so that's why AGDC made the decision to phase the project and build the pipeline first. We stepped into the project with that intent. If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have said we're not really going to talk about LNG until, you know,

we've gotten the pipeline into construction. Then we can go to the market and really sell the LNG much more successfully. That assumption was slightly incorrect in a very positive way, because the demand for buying LNG from Alaska has been more accelerated and stronger than we ever expected. And so the incremental things that we have done to

show real progress on the pipeline has given LNG buyers confidence that the project is going forward. And it is what it's meant is it's accelerated the timeline of getting the entire project up and running. We still intend to get the pipeline into FID and start construction on the pipeline first. Then the final engineering and preparation for construction on the export facility will take

around nine to twelve months. And so you have kind of a nine to twelve month preparation period from the time that the pipeline FIDs until the export facility FIDs. But what we're seeing right now has just been a real accumulation of interest and increase in certainty for the entire project.

Well

Thanks through the chair, just follow up about that, but the import facility is proceeding

concurrently too. And then if you could just address how quickly does the gas treatment plant have to be built in order to supply those export contracts? Thank you.

Representative

So

Fields, through the chair. I'll start with the gas treatment facility. The gas treatment facility needs to be built and FID at the same time as the export facility. And so the only way you can get your entire gas volume down to the export facility is if you build the gas treatment facility. In order to finance the gas, the LNG facility, you'll need to see that there's a gas treatment facility. So it's going to need to be basically a concurrent FID. The import terminal is on a

slightly independent path, independent timeline. We are pushing that very aggressively in timeline as well. It does not, unlike the connection between the LNG pipeline and the export facility, the LNG import terminal isn't one of the sequential phases. We can develop that and push that forward right now, and in fact we are. And so our team, our engineering team

at Worley is conducting a feed and a repricing on that LNG import terminal and preparing to take that project forward in order to be an additional potential supply of energy security.

Well, that's

So just a final follow up on the import export facility because I think we often hear about them as their as if they're the same thing and maybe the same facility, but

How much money or what components go into importing that then get turned around for exporting, how much does that cost? What is the time frame if you achieve an import facility first and then convert it to an export facility?

Thank you.

Representative Fields, through the chair. This is one of my favorite questions to get because we think it's a very elegant solution. First I will say that there is a long history in the United States of America of converting LNG import terminals

into export terminals. And so this is a well worn development path. At least ten LNG projects in the lower 48 started out as import terminals, then eventually became export terminals. So we aren't the first ones to come up with this idea. That said,

around 95% of the capital expense of the equipment, of the machinery, of the work that goes into developing the import terminal is directly applicable to the export terminal. And so in our mind, a dollar that we're spending developing the import terminal, at that point we're just developing an LNG facility. And so whenever it's, you can develop an LNG terminal, you can build it faster than you can build an export facility.

But we're happy to spend the dollars on that because we know eventually it'll all get used for the LNG export facility.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Uh representative Elam.

Thank you um you know I actually kinda looking at more of the presentation here so I don't you don't wanna take from the questions or anything but um we're kinda bouncing around a little bit, and so slides um

Well, the LNG market one and the uh critical trade routes uh were ones that I was really kind of curious to hear more about. Um and so I guess my my initial question is the you know geopolitical situations that are going on in the Middle East um has that impacted

You guys organisationally, what kind of impacts are we looking at uh potentially on the on the project as well, if there's any there?

Representative Elam, through the chair, the direct impacts of the events in Iran have been

a real acceleration and intensification of our LNG sales discussions. And so all the counterparties that signed preliminary agreements on that list are all very anxious to advance. We're in pricing negotiations with all of them. They're all very interested to advance them and move them into binding contracts. The result of that has been our LNG sales team is extremely busy, extremely active,

juggling numerous customers at the same time to make sure that those that are ready to accept forward and sign contracts have the opportunity to do so. And that's just kind of a snapshot of the last couple of weeks since this started. In the big picture, what's happening today is

a powerful exhibit of everything that we've been saying about Alaska LNG and why it's unique as a product. There is no other way for LNG to be supplied to Asia from the United States without going, and I think through most other places, without going through one of the major maritime choke points. A couple here on this, pardon me, on this prior slide,

the Straits of Hormuz is where 21% of LNG passes.

You have the Straits of Malacca, a huge transportation area through a very narrow navigational waterway. You have the South China Sea where a lot of LNG comes up. That's currently disputed by seven, the ownership of the South China Sea is currently disputed by seven different nations. That's got a potential conflict. Then you have the Panama Canal. So even without some, you know,

I

wartime tension, the Panama Canal is susceptible to traffic and droughts. And a lot of times ships will choose to go around the Cape of Good Hope in order to get to Asia rather than going through the Panama Canal because the time and the cost of going through the Panama Canal can be so costly.

Alaska LNG avoids all of those. It is simply a straight shot along the Aleutian Islands effectively from Anchorage to Japan, from Anchorage to Korea, and our buyers recognize that that is a savings on shipping cost and it is a dramatic increase in reliability.

You need to look no further than the operational track record of Kenai LNG. Started in 1969, ran for 48 years, exported cargoes to LNG to Japan for nearly five decades without

missing a single cargo. And so that's your operational that's your historical track record. And what's happening right now in the Straits of Hormuz is just a real powerful exhibit of what can happen when a country is too reliant on L and G that needs to pack pass through a a potential major choke point.

I may follow up?

Follow up.

I guess my second question is slightly off topic, but

are we coming up with any kind of timelines on like

groundbreaking? And so, you know, I mean, I don't mean to jump ahead of all of the stuff and I don't want to, you know, shake credibility in the project or anything because I do realize there's a number of moving parts. But I've heard, you know, much like everybody else, a variety of rumors of logistics already kind of starting to be in place and in play. Do you have any comments in those areas?

Representative Elam, through the chair, this is Adam Presis for the record.

2026 is going to be a big year. And so we have our pipe suppliers that are contracted and lined up. We think we'll be putting purchase orders in for pipeline to be delivered into South Central Alaska ports in the near future. And what I'll say about the overall project schedule that hasn't changed is that we anticipate the pipeline being

up and running with completion, mechanical completion by the end of 2028 and full operations by mid-2029 and the LNG facility exporting LNG by mid, early to mid-2031. There are some critical parts of that schedule, but there are also buffers and contingencies in that schedule and so

while we work on bringing all these complicated pieces together, we're still maintaining that ultimate project completion date.

If I may, one more follow-up?

Yes, Representative Elam, I will say we have about 13 minutes left

Okay.

committee and we've got to turn the room over so Representative

Okay,

thank you.

I'm just wondering if you could maybe speak to any of the other industry related, you know, like the state has, you know, the railroad and we've got a variety of other groups here that probably would be helping with some of these logistics. Do you have any insight or information or updates maybe you could share with us

related to some of those logistics?

Absolutely.

A lot of land.

Absolutely, Representative. I do want our state colleagues to respond to that in part, but I will say we've had, we at Glenfarn have had a great continuing dialogue with a number of state agencies, agencies throughout the administration,

the railroad and numerous, numerous others. And so we are working hard to maintain a constant collaboration with many different agencies across the state.

Matt Kissinger for the record, Representative Elam, through the chair exactly what Adam said. So working we have the Commissioner of Transportation Anderson obviously on the board of AGDC and so he has good transparency in everything that's going on and working very closely with the railroad and with Mat Sue Borough as well and looking at options for even Port Mackenzie.

Excellent, thank you.

Representative Fields, is your question relating to Representative's question or is it

No, I was just trying to get in line after whoever

Oh,

was next. Thank

All right.

you.

Okay.

Representative Sattler.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the time we have available, I want to ask kind of a leading question, but disregarding potential bills, are there any current state laws or legal structures or regulatory structures that are serving as a roadblock to progress on the pipeline project?

Representative Sattler, through the chair, this is Adam Presage. For the record, we are as you know, the House bill with the payment in lieu

Mm-hmm.

of taxes and the Senate bill have been introduced in the last week. That's an important part of the project and so that's where our focus is in terms of state involvement.

But my question was disregarding those potential bills, are there any current laws that are making things difficult for you?

Representative Sattler through the chair, no, no, we, otherwise we think this is a great environment to build this project.

Madam Chair, Mark Baggage, for the record. I know you're surprised by that answer and

gratified.

It's very. This is what's so unique about this project compared to the ones in the past. It is a private developer led and the only issue, as you heard which we'll discuss Wednesday is the only subject matter that is of need. There will be other policy calls by you all at some point regarding investment or no investment, but that's a different

question. It's not an impediment.

Mm.

Yep.

Good.

Yep.

Good.

Yeah.

Good.

Good.

Thank you, Representative Sattler. Representative Mears, thank you.

I keep getting more questions but and I haven't gotten to my original list, but I'll just ask one right now. So through the chair, um I wanted to get back to the short-term lng import. So we haven't really been discussing that so much here in-house resources, but we've had we've definitely been talking about it over in-house energy. So at the moment there is not only uh the Glen farm project in collaboration with Nstar, but there's the

harvest facility that is the canine algae export plant.

I can't remember what we know for sure and we were given and what we've inferred but roughly

Those are two capital projects that are about a half a billion dollars each. And I find it challenging to think that our customers are going to pay for two duplicative infrastructures that are not that far apart.

I would like to know more from you guys since we've had more of a discussion with NSTAR about those competing projects and how can we get

get to having one? Does that project work for you? I guess that's the better question. Does that does the harvest facility work for export?

Representative Mears to the chair. This is Adam Presage. The two facilities are extremely different. The Kenai LNG plant has got a capacity in terms of export if you're asking about export of less than a million tons per year. It's also fifty over fifty years old. Compare that to the

Alaska LNG project of twenty million tons with today's engineering on it. A very different project. The Alaska LNG project is the export facility that is going to be built. In terms of what the ratepayers will pay for, I believe the two projects

could potentially coexist. All of the contracts will be submitted to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, who's opened an informational docket on this topic. And certainly I don't think that there's a scenario where ratepayers are going to be asked to pay for more infrastructure than they need.

Follow up?

Follow up? Um

Through the chair,

I appreciate that perspective,

but our reality is the best place for the decisions to be made to have one facility is.

not within state government. It's within the private sector, it's within the utilities and the project. The second best place for that to happen is within the regulatory commission of Alaska. But they have limited tools and their limited tools are contracts that they do not have in front of them. Other things are proceeding, permits are proceeding, you know, like these projects are moving forward and um

It's a struggle. We've put ourselves into a box that private sector is taking the lead here and private sector is going forward with two projects and

I'm having a real hard time with that because who else to pay for it? The population in Alaska is low, there's less than a million people in the entire state and you know even though the majority of them are on the rail belt, that's still not a lot of people that we need to put these costs on. It's not just individuals but it it's businesses. And we're looking at higher costs for importing LNG or even the first phase of the pipeline then we have now. And

And energy rates are really unaffordable for a lot of folks. We've had a really rough winter in here, in Juneau, it's looking at amount of snowfall. I'm I was a little disconnected by how cold it's been in Anchorage since I've been down here. It's been a brutal winter,

and up in Fairbanks even more so. So our energy demands, I mean that's just number of units is going up, and that's with our Cook Inlet natural gas prices.

So

It it's it's a lot and I have some really deep short term concerns.

Representative Meares, through the chair, uh Adam Press is for the record. I will say um I appreciate

And I agree with your assessment that the best place to take care of those things is firstly the p the private sector. Um I don't think that the the utility buyers um the utility buyers in Alaska are sophisticated gas buyers. They've been buying and using gas for a long time. Uh and I can tell you there are a lot of there are a lot of confidential negotiations going on among that, you know, relatively large working group to try to make sure that uh everything here is the most efficient uh use of capital.

I'll leave it be.

Uh thank you, we've got about six minutes left and I've got representative Fields and representative Sadler.

Um well thanks to the chair, since we started to look ahead to Wednesday in the bill, I figured I'd just start asking about that. So if I'm remembering the units correctly, the bill proposes a

Alternative volumetric tax rate of $0.06 per MCF. And I was hoping that. Okay, MMCF. I was hoping that you could help make the case for that based on what tax rates are in other jurisdictions or what the economics are for this project.

Representative Fields to the chair. If you'll allow me to respectfully defer most of that conversation to Wednesday's session, that'll be answered in detail. What I will say is that

basing the tax on a volume of gas flowing through the pipeline, we believe

more properly reflects the actual operation of the company and what's actually available for tax payments. It also aligns everyone, the infrastructure owner and the state to have more gas flowing on the pipeline.

So.

If I may add to the chair, Matt Kissinger for the record, Representative Fields, through the chair at AGDC, we had gas Strategies come and do an exact benchmark as you're talking about with the other areas that we would be building in Texas, Louisiana, US coast and even overseas. And what they determined was that we basically pay an order of magnitude higher, so 10 times higher property taxes under current statutes

than in any of those areas. So you'd be looking at around a $50 million per year property tax if this was located in one of those other areas versus in Alaska, where under the current statutes it could be 500 million.

Follow up

through the chair. That would be good to share with us and also just share, you know, break it down to total government take so we understand where we are with competing jurisdictions in addition to factoring in whatever is different or the same

about this project.

Thank you.

No.

Thank you.

And last in my queue, I've got Representative Sadler.

Thank you. Thank you. You know, I understand that Glenfarn is advancing a very complicated project on many fronts and I'm not trying to ask you to air weaknesses, but there's often. There's a lot of plates you're spinning, keeping going. Are there challenges that we in the legislature or maybe the larger public is not aware of? I'm looking at slide 8. Pardon me. 5. For example, I see steel supply agreement. There are questions of what plants could roll the steel workforce, transportation.

Are there any issues that that you're dealing with that maybe are not socialized in the legislature or the public that are

Mm-hmm.

not allowing instant FID

not instant respectfully, but just that are slowing the process or posing a challenge.

He he

W

he he

uh

I'll go ahead.

What I'll say, Representative Sadler, through the chair. It's a big project. There are

40 different work streams. Just throwing out a number

Mm-hmm.

that all need to line up. That's the challenge and task and capability of a private developer like us. That's what we're here to do. Some of them are hard and require some creativity. All of them require hard work. There's not any one in particular that standing alone keeps me awake at night and I think to myself, oh, I hope this works or the whole project's not going to happen.

Because I think it's an excellent project and I don't want to understate the tremendous amount of work that needs to go in and the creativity and the hard work and the drive that needs to go in to get it across the line. But the reason Glenfarn stepped into this project is because its fundamentals are good and we see not only a viable project, but an incredibly successful project going forward.

But.

But the reason that Glenn Pharn stepped into this project is because its fundamentals are good and we see a. Not only a viable project, but an incredibly successful project going forward.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'm Mark Bates for the record, it represents Senator. Um I guess I would give a broad one and that is th this process we're in now is important for the public, for everyone to kind of see the project. But we have, th when I say we collectively, I'll put Glen Foran over here for a second as a state, we have a careful balance, right. Our job

Mm.

is to have this partnership work, but also do everything we can to get everything we can for the state side. Glen Farn's job is to get everything they need, but do a project, and we want the project. But in that process there is a balance that has to be done in the public arena, because investors who look at this project can invest anywhere in the world.

And when they don't see alignment, there's a nervous, right? You talk about risk, you know, every day what I give advice to administration is how do you mitigate risk. The more risk you mitigate, the more opportunity you have. I mean, that's pure and simple. And so in this process we're in today, it's important,

the due diligence that you're all going through, but at the same time we have to recognize that investors look.

at what's happening here. And they want to make sure that this climate is good investment. So far, so good. But we that's what keeps me worried frankly to to watch that careful balance because we tug of war

But then when it turns into three, it gets complicated. And what we have to do at a certain point is once we figure out all the due diligence that everyone's done is land and go.

Because we have to secure investors who are looking around the globe to where they put their money.

And this is a good project for all the reasons we described and gets better every minute, literally because of global activity. So that's a careful balance we all have to keep in mind as we move down this next few steps here.

And Adam Preston, for the record, if I can add, I fully concur with Mark. Part of the reason I'm optimistic about this project is because of the environment that we have with the state, with the legal environment

and I think that's, you know, you'd see kind of the optimism potentially change if there were a dramatic shift to that environment that made it more difficult to develop the project.

Thank you both. Chair Sprig.

Thank you. And we've got. Well, we're over time. And so I will say that if there are any other questions, you can submit them to my office. We will. I know I didn't get to your last question, Representative Prox. This is not the last time we're gonna have Glenfarn in front of our committee. I've spoken with Mr. Begich and got him to. There will be more hearings and more opportunities to ask questions. So

Please submit any questions that you might have and we'll work on distributing all of those.

That completes the agenda for House Resources Committee meeting today. Our next House Resources Committee meeting is Wednesday, March 25, 2026, where we will take up House Bill 381 relating to the property taxes for the Alaska LNG project. The time now is 3:01pm and this hearing of the House Resources Committee is now adjourned.