|
Dear Friends and
Neighbors,
Special Session - Day 22
Gas Pipeline - only special session topic
Meetings this week of
House Finance and Senate Finance both in Juneau.
Meeting summaries are
located in newsletter section below.
Alaskans need a source of
energy to heat and light their homes.
There's a large amount of
gas on the North Slope.
I would like to see that
NS gas available to Alaskans.
The question is...how?
What will it cost? What are the details we need to know?
I believe you want me to
ask the questions, get the in-depth information, not give away our
gas assets for pennies on the dollar, and not leave you with even
more expensive energy costs.
So I'm asking the hard
questions. I'm studying the in-depth subject. Every day. All day.
I believe we can do both:
come to reasonable terms on this project, allow it to go forward
and protect Alaskans.
We were given the
financial terms, but none of the real facts, on March 20.
We need more than 2 1/2
months to find real data (from
a company that is hiding it) and reach terms to go forward.
We need more time.
This is being rushed.
Glenfarne themselves are
not ready. Their current FERC monthly report indicates no materials
ordered. There are still labor agreements that are done.
Glenfarne has no
investors, no gas sales agreements, no firm purchase agreements.
Highlights of things
disclosed by Glenfarne, the project manager.
1. Price tag has changed. In March the cost of the project was
$46.2 Billion. Now Glenfarne has told Senate Finance that the cost
is a range of $44.5-54.5 Billion. In early April, Mark Begich
(gas pipeline lobbyist for Governor Dunleavy) told a private
gathering that the real cost was $57 Billion. Other projects
even smaller than this one range $52-61 Billion.
2. If Glenfarne only builds the gas pipeline (no
Gas Treatment Plant, no LNG export plant) the cost of the gas was
being shown to be about the same as $17 imported gas. Now
Glenfarne has made a promise to ENSTAR that the "pipeline
only" gas to ENSTAR will be sold for $16. Today Cook
Inlet gas is about $11. (The price of energy is going up,
regardless of where it comes from.)
3. The gas treatment plant on the North Slope
(belonging to Glenfarne) would qualify for the "45Q"
credits earned from underground injection of CO2. Over the first 12
years, approximately 68 million tons injected, Glenfarne would earn
$7.4 Billion in credits. The state will comparatively earn $170
Million.
4. Glenfarne has increased estimated workforce
to 12,000. Reviewing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 50% of the
workforce over the 5-6 years of construction will not be Alaskans. (Please
note what I keep reminding: Out-of-state employees will have the
highest paying, specialized jobs. Their paychecks will auto-deposit
in their home states, where they will pay that state an income tax
on their Alaska wages.)
5. The union workforce agreements are only
with the Lower 48 unions at this time. Negotiation with Alaska
in-state union workforce has not been settled.
6. Glenfarne does not have the compete
right-of-way authority for the pipeline yet.
AGDC has spoken as if they did, but this was corrected before
Senate Finance. AGDC stated that they may have to use "eminent
domain taking" of the property needed. But wait! AGDC
applied to FERC for authorization for this project under Section 3
of FERC law, as a contract carrier with privately negotiated term; eminent
domain is not available to Section 3 pipelines.
7. Corporate Income Tax (CIT) - All
C-Corporations in Alaska pay the state corporate income tax every
year. S-corporations, limited liability
corporations, sole proprietorships do not pay any corporate tax to
Alaska; there is a proposal to change this. Glenfarne is a
privately owned company so tax on profits are paid by the owners of
Glenfarne to their home state and through federal taxes. Dept
of Revenue estimates that if Alaska had a CIT it will be about
$445 Million/year under this project. That means Glenfarne
and its other contractors (S-corps or LLCs) will be netting
(profiting) around $40 Billion/year. Glenfarne has repeatedly
said that they are just fine with an S-corporation state tax being
put in place. The reason, Glenfarne told Senate Finance, is that
they are a Limited Liability Corporation. They apparently didn't
read the legislation which would encompass all
"pass-through" corporation forms (S-Corps, LLCs, sole
proprietorships). Glenfarne stated that some of their contracting
companies might not like having an Alaska corporate tax.
8. Glenfarne must have Alaska tax abatement
(90% tax reduction), federal loans, and federal 45Q credits to
make this project work financially. Does anyone else think this is
a questionably viable project or...that Alaskans might be left
paying a huge price for this?
9. Iron Rule of Megaprojects: "Over-time,
Over-budget, Over expectations. Over and over and over."
Follow
up to GaffneyCline Testimony to Senate Finance Committee on May
28th 2026
'Build
the Line!' rally demands answer to wrong question. Reporting from
Alaska
“Are you willing to pass
a bill that meets the needs and requirements of the developer in
order to finance and build this project even if it means the
state's project cost obligations and revenue concessions could
exceed project revenues to the state?”
Glenfarne
numbers out Petroleum
News
The numbers the company
presented were its 2026 estimate for construction costs for the
Alaska LNG project: A low of $44.5 billion and a high of $54.5
billion. John Sims, president of Enstar, told legislators that
Enstar was close to an agreement with Glenfarne on a $16 per
thousand cubic feet price for natural gas from phase 1 of the
project, a number confirmed by Prestidge when he addressed House
Finance June 2.
Alaska
LNG pipeline cost unveiled after months of lawmakers asking for
price tag. Alaska News Source
For the first time during
the ongoing LNG special session, the major developer
behind Alaska’s proposed natural gas pipeline, Glenfarne, put a
public price tag on the project Wednesday — between $44.5 billion and $54.5 billion — a figure lawmakers say
they’ve needed for months to decide on critical tax breaks.
Alaska LNG cost estimate
bumps to as much as $55B as lawmakers weigh what comes next in
special session ADN
(My comment: This is an
absurdly short time to make serious investor level decisions!
Governor has put Alaska in very bad position in his personal quest
for this project…at any cost to Alaskans, long after he’s gone to
his next honor!)
Alaska
gas pipeline developer offers concession, proposes to cap natural
gas costs for Alaskans ADN
(My comment: This is an
excellent summary of Glenfarne’s increasing changes in response to
Legislative questioning. Because of our work, we are getting better
protections for Alaska.)
Glenfarne
releases Alaska LNG cost estimates, as skeptical legislators press
for details Alaska Public Media
The developer of the
Alaska LNG project released its first specific public cost
estimates Wednesday for the proposed 800-mile gas pipeline and
associated infrastructure. The developer, Glenfarne, told state
senators it estimates the full project will cost between $44.5
billion and $54.5 billion. The first phase of the project, the
pipeline itself, is likely to cost between $13.2 and $16.9 billion,
according to the company’s estimates.
(My comment: I don’t care
what they “think” costs are. I want to know what the costs actually
are based on the Class 2 numbers they say they have. I’m not
interested in a $3.7 Billion (Billion) spread in their latest
“likely” costs. The pipeline costs (Phase 1) determines tariff paid
by Alaska consumers. We also have to define “cost overruns”; will
that be $14Billion or $17 Billion?)
Just
like that, Alaska LNG project soars to $54.4 billion Reporting from Alaska
Adam Prestidge, the
president of Glenfarne Alaska LNG, tried to defend the company’s
stonewalling without success before the House Finance Committee
Opinion:
North Slope gas projects of the past call for a cautious approach
in the present ADN
In a gas fiscal contract
negotiated with the producers by the Murkowski administration, the
state conceded to
so many producer demands that the same consultant
who initiated the fiscal contract idea warned that the state had
gone too far and there was “absolutely no need to treat Alaska as a
banana republic in order to secure the gas line.” Legislators who
withstood intense political pressure and refused to approve the
contract protected Alaska from a deal that could have cost the
state more than it returned.
The
trans-Alaska pipeline paid taxes. So can the LNG Alaska Beacon
History matters here. The
trans-Alaska pipeline was not built because Alaska handed the
Alyeska consortium a 90% tax cut. It was built because the
consortium companies financed the roughly $8 billion construction —
that’s in 1970s dollars — themselves.
LNG
Special Session: House committee nears end of scrutiny with less
than two weeks left KTUU
Items in this Newsletter:
· Gasline Finance Committee Meetings
· Podcast: With All Due Respect, Glenfarne's
Monorail?
· Press Release: Bureau of Land Management
· Youth Leadership Forum 2026
· Oil and Gas Pipeline Topics with Current
Topics, Stuff I Found Interesting, Education, Politics, Healthcare
· Resource Values, Permanent Fund Data
· Alaska History
|
