Alaska Resource Review is the official magazine of the RDC, published four times a year to inform Alaskans and others about the importance of Alaska’s resource industries as well as advocate for issues critical to the success of those industries. Resource Review reaches more than 20,000 readers important to these industries, in print, at RDC events and online via digital, social and email media.
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 3 | SEPTEMBER 2026
THE NORTH SLOPE’S NEXT CHAPTER Inside Pikka and developments shaping a new era of Alaska's oil and gas future
RDC board members and staff got a firsthand look at the scale, innovation and opportunity ahead for Santos and the Slope. See more photos and details from their August outreach trip inside.
INSIDE THIS ISSUE n Alaska LNG: A historical look at the monumental project n "Dirty Jobs" host Mike Rowe puts spotlight on workforce n RDC's Annual Membership Luncheon highlights unity n Alaska at Work: A conversation on the tourism industry n Meet Lauren Rice, RDC's External Affairs Coordinator Magazine of the Resource Development Council for Alaska | www.AKRDC.org
Scan for full details on the 47th Annual Alaska Resources Conference
INDEX
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 3 | SEPTEMBER 2026
PAGES 12-17 ALASKA LNG PROJECT: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Despite the outcome, lawmakers did come to broad agreement on House Bill 381, which dealt mostly with abatement of property tax for the Alaska LNG Project. If there’s any silver lining, there is now a framework to move forward if the S Corporation issue can be resolved. PAGES 20-24 RDC ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP LUNECHON IS A SUCCESS! Thank you to all of our members, sponsors and guests who joined us for our Annual Membership Luncheon, where David Fotouhi, Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, detailed current work to remove barriers for business in Alaska. PAGES 26-27 A CONVERSATION ON TIMBER WITH SARAH DAHLSTROM Sarah Dahlstrom, who oversees public relations and communications for Viking Lumber, is President of the Alaska Forest Association. We asked her to provide her insight into Alaska's timber industry and what the RDC means to her.
12-17
1620-24
30 26-27
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW is published in partnership with the Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. by Fireweed Strategies LLC, 4849 Potter Crest Circle, Anchorage, AK 99516. For advertising information and story inquiries, email Lee.Leschper@FireweedStrategies.com. ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW is mailed at no charge throughout Alaska. To subscribe, email Admin@FireweedStrategies.com. Publisher: Lee Leschper | Managing Editor: Will Leschper | Contributing Writer: Tim Bradner | Contributing Photographer: Judy Patrick
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR ALASKA, INC.: 301 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Ste. 406, Anchorage, AK 99503 | resources@akrdc.org | 907-276-0700
2
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2026
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 3 | SEPTEMBER 2026
BUILDING ON OUR MOMENTUM "We must protect the progress that has been made while advocating for policies that allow our industries to invest for the long term. Our challenge is to keep that momentum moving forward and turn it into last- ing opportunity for the next generation of Alaskans." — Connor Hajdukovich, Executive Director, RDC
D EAR MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS: At this year’s Alaska Resources Conference on Nov. 11-12, Scott Habberstad will conclude his term as RDC’s Board President, and we will be welcoming Joe Balash into the role. Fortunately, Scott isn’t going far and will continue serving as a board officer in his role as Past President. Under Scott’s leadership, RDC has seen significant growth in membership, sponsorships and event attendance. More importantly, he genuinely cares about this organization and is always looking for ways to make it stronger. It has been an honor to serve as Executive Director under Scott’s leadership, and I hope he enjoys having a little less of the spotlight! On the staff side, we welcomed Lauren Rice to the RDC team this summer as our new External Affairs Coordinator. Lauren’s experience in Alaska politics and communications is already proving to be an asset to the team, and I encourage you to read more about her in this edition of the Resource Review. Jennifer Kuhlmann continues to be a rockstar, outpacing our membership and sponsorship goals while keeping so much of the organization running behind the scenes. I am incredibly fortunate to have such a strong and growing team at RDC. One of the best parts of this job is getting out of the office and seeing our industries at work. This summer, I had the opportunity to better understand the logistical challenges of operating at Kensington Mine, see the remarkable recycling and waste management systems aboard a Holland America Line cruise ship and watch the promise of the Lucky Shot Mine near Palmer take shape. Our Board Outreach Trip with San- tos gave us a firsthand look at the impressive Pikka project and the new investment, jobs and economic activity it is bringing to Alaska. Those experiences reinforced something I see across all of RDC’s industries: Alaska has momentum. That is what this year’s Alaska Resources Conference is all about, “BUILDING ON MOMENTUM: CREATING LASTING OPPORTUNITY FOR ALASKA’S RESOURCES.” An object in motion stays in motion, and 2026 has given Alaska plenty to build on. This year, we’ve made substantial progress in de- veloping our oil and gas resources on the slope, bringing new mines closer to production, stopping targeted taxes on industries, repealing onerous and federal regulations, continuing to welcome record num- bers of visitors and rejecting one-size-fits-all federal regulations. We’ve also seen increased focus at the highest levels of the government. Just this summer, we saw the Secretaries of Energy and Homeland Security, the Speaker of the House, multiple U.S.
Unlocking More Oil and Jobs on State Lands At Santos, we are proud to develop the world-class Pikka Project on Alaska’s State Lands - creating more revenue and more jobs for Alaskans. Pikka is unlocking 400 million barrels of Alaska’s oil. It has already created thousands of construction jobs and will provide hundreds of permanent jobs. This is just the beginning. By July, 80,000 barrels per day will be added to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. Santos is building the future of energy in Alaska.
Senators and the members of the Western Caucus and many more visiting our state. We even had a national celebrity taking an inter- est in Alaska’s resource future, with Mike Rowe from "Dirty Jobs" joining a panel with RDC at the Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center to discuss workforce development. But momentum alone does not guarantee lasting success. We must protect the progress that has been made while advocating for policies that allow our industries to invest for the long term. Our challenge now is to keep that momentum moving forward and turn it into lasting opportunity for the next generation of Alaskans. RDC Board Member Rochelle Lindley, External Affairs Manager with Coeur Alaska, recently led resource development stakeholders on a tour of Kensington Mine in Juneau. Thank you to Rochelle and the professionals who took time to welcome us and provide a firsthand look at the challenges and opportunities that come with doing business in Alaska. See more on Page 10.
SINCERELY, CONNOR HAJDUKOVICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2026
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 3 | SEPTEMBER 2026
that defines RDC. Our members may come from different sectors, regions and organiza- tional perspectives, but they share a com- mitment to Alaska’s future. They understand that a strong private sector is essential to a healthy state economy. They also understand that advocacy is most effective when it is grounded in facts, respect and a willingness to listen. RDC has long been a forum where difficult issues can be discussed thoughtfully, and where common ground can be found in support of Alaska’s long-term success. As my term as president comes to a close, I am confident that RDC is headed in the right direction. The organization is stronger because of the work we have done together, but even more because of the people who will continue that work. I am especially excited for incoming President Joe Balash and the leadership he will bring to the role. Joe understands Alaska, understands resource development and understands the importance of bringing people together around practical solutions. I know he will build on the progress of the past two years and help guide RDC into its next chapter with energy, experience and purpose.
"As I reflect on my term, I am filled with gratitude for the trust placed in me, pride in what we have accomplished and confidence in where this organization is headed next." — Scott Habberstad, President, RDC
IT HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE TO SERVE RDC AND ALASKA
The challenges before Alaska are sig- nificant, but so are the opportunities. Our state has world-class resources, innovative companies, skilled workers, strong com- munities and a history of meeting big chal- lenges with determination. If we continue to advocate clearly, work collaboratively and insist on policies that support respon- sible development, Alaska can remain a place where resource industries thrive and future generations have reason to stay, work, invest and build their lives.
Thank you to the RDC board, staff, members, sponsors and partners who have supported this organization and its mis- sion. It has been an honor to serve as presi- dent, and I am grateful for the opportunity to have played a part in RDC’s continued progress. I look forward to supporting Joe and the entire RDC team as they build on what has been accomplished, and continue working toward a brighter tomorrow for the industries that make up RDC — and for Alaska.
S ERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE RE- SOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR ALASKA HAS BEEN ONE OF THE GREAT PRIVILEGES OF MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE. OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTU- NITY TO WORK ALONGSIDE A DEDICATED BOARD, AN EXCEPTIONAL STAFF AND MEMBERS FROM EV- ERY CORNER OF ALASKA’S RESOURCE INDUSTRY. Together, we have continued the import- ant work of advancing RDC’s mission: grow- ing Alaska through responsible resource development. As I reflect on my term, I am filled with gratitude for the trust placed in me, pride in what we have accomplished and confidence in where this organization is headed next. RDC has always occupied a unique and essential place in Alaska. Our membership brings together industries that are founda- tional to the state’s economy, including oil and gas, mining, tourism, fisheries, forestry, Alaska Native corporations, organized labor, local communities and the many businesses that support these sectors. That diversity is one of our greatest strengths. It allows RDC to speak with a broad and credible voice about the policies, projects and partner- ships needed to keep Alaska competitive, prosperous, and resilient. In a state where opportunity is often tied directly to access, infrastructure, investment and regulatory certainty, RDC’s role has never been more important. Our Executive Director Connor Hajdukovich is championing our resolve on both the state and federal level. One of the accomplishments I am most
proud of is the way our team has strength- ened and grown RDC’s membership through Jennifer Kuhlmann’s leadership. Membership is more than a number on a re- port; it is a reflection of relevance, trust and shared purpose. Over the past two years, we have worked to deepen engagement with existing members while welcoming new voices into the organization. We have sought to ensure that RDC remains a place where leaders from across Alaska’s resource indus- tries can connect, learn from one another and unite around common goals. That effort has made us stronger, more representative and better equipped to advocate on behalf of the industries and communities that help drive Alaska forward. We have also made important progress in strengthening RDC’s financial position. A strong balance sheet gives an organization the flexibility to respond to challenges, the stability to plan for the future and the capac- ity to invest in the work that matters most. Through disciplined oversight, thoughtful planning and the continued support of our members and sponsors, RDC is well posi- tioned to continue delivering value. That financial strength is not an end in itself; it is a tool that allows us to remain effective, independent and focused on our mission. Equally important is the fact that RDC has remained an active and respected advo- cate for responsible resource development across the industries that make up Alaska’s economy. We have engaged in issues affect- ing oil and gas, mining, fisheries, forestry,
tourism, transportation, land access, permit- ting, infrastructure, energy and economic development. We have worked to make sure policymakers understand that responsible development and environmental stew- ardship are not opposing ideas. In Alaska, they must go hand in hand. Our industries operate in some of the most challenging and carefully managed environments in the world, and the people who live and work here understand the importance of mind- ful development and stewardship. We care about doing things the right way. We recent- ly welcomed Lauren Rice to the RDC family as our External Affairs Coordinator. We are truly fortunate to have attracted Lauren and expect great things to come in our advocacy efforts. Alaska’s resource industries do far more than produce commodities or support indi- vidual projects. They create careers, sustain communities, generate public revenues, support small businesses and help make possible the infrastructure and services that Alaskans rely on every day. From the North Slope to Southeast, from the Interior to Western Alaska, responsible resource development helps provide opportunities in places where they can be difficult and expensive to create. RDC’s work matters because the decisions made in boardrooms, agencies, legislatures and courtrooms have real consequences for families, communities and the future of our state. What I have appreciated most during my time as president is the spirit of collaboration
GROWING OPPORTUNITY. ROOTED IN RESPECT.
6
7
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2026
ALASKA RESOURCES GUBERNATORIAL FORUM: CANDIDATES SHARE VISION FOR OUR FUTURE
RDC SPOTLIGHT: CELEBRATING THE TRADES WITH MIKE ROWE, HOST OF "DIRTY JOBS"
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 3 | SEPTEMBER 2026
In late September, RDC had the honor of co-hosting the Alaska Resources Gubernatorial Forum with our fellow trade associations and memberships. All four candidates came to share their vision for Alaska and answer tough questions on issues facing Alaska's resource development industries. Thank you to the candidates, our co-hosts and our attendees who packed the room for this important dialogue. A full recording of the forum is available at www.akrdc.org.
In late July, RDC Executive Director Connor Hajdukovich was honored to join Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan, "Dirty Jobs" TV host Mike Rowe, and Amy Schumacher, the Director of the Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center, to discuss the importance of workforce development and the growing demand for skilled trades in Alaska. As our state’s opportunities continue to grow, prepar- ing Alaskans for careers that support energy, infrastruc- ture and resource development projects remains a top priority for RDC and its member industries. We extend a special thank you to Wells Fargo, an RDC member company, for its generous $250,000 investment in the Pipeline Training Center and $250,000 to the Alaska Vocational and Technical Center (AVTEC) in Homer. These donations will help expand workforce training opportuni- ties and equip the next generation of skilled workers. Thank you to everyone working to strengthen Alaska's workforce and invest in the people who will build our state's future!
Photos by Lee Leschper
8
9
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2026
RDC IN ACTION: TOURING KENSINGTON MINE
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 3 | SEPTEMBER 2026
The RDC recently joined resource development and university leaders, and elected officials on a tour of Coeur Alaska's Kensington Mine in Juneau. Opportunities like this are important in getting an inside look at the innovation and safety of Alaska's responsible and modern mines. Thank you to the Kensington employees who showcased the operation and everything that goes on underground that few ever get the chance to experience!
PROUDLY PROVIDING ALASKA with underground, surface and helicopter supported core drilling for mineral exploration and geotechnical work.
800-322-3201 • office@ruendrilling.com ruendrilling.com
10
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2026
ALASKA LNG: THROUGH THE YEARS
V O L UVMOELU3M| EI S1S|UISES3U|ES2E|PSTUEM MB E R 2 0 2 64
NUMEROUS NEW PLANS ... NUMEROUS SETBACKS
gas to markets. A wide-ranging set of options were considered including a pipeline west from Prudhoe Bay through the National Petroleum Reserve-Alas- ka to an LNG plant on the Chukchi Sea coast. The companies settled, however, on a pipeline built parallel to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System similar to YPC’s plan to an LNG plant in Valdez. Unlike the YPC proposal, however, the producer-led group considered an LNG plant sited adjacent to the existing Valdez Marine Terminal, which handles crude oil storage and shipments. Under this plan, the LNG plant would take advantage of infrastructure built for the crude oil terminal. Japanese companies joined the produc- ing companies in this and participated in studies. This project did not move forward because, at the time, it was judged that Asia’s LNG market, while growing, would still be too small to absorb the large volume of LNG the Alaska project would have to produce to be economic. The group also studied a smaller project to export less LNG but found it was uneconomic mainly due to the high cost of the pipeline. 2001: In 2001, the three major North Slope producers decided to take a new look at a gas pipeline to the continental U.S. through Canada.
The companies spent $150 million on the project, which established a framework for further efforts on an “all-land” alternative for a pipeline to the Lower 48. Similar to the earlier Northwest and Foothills plans the pipeline would follow the TAPS corridor to Interior Alaska and then southeast thorough the Yukon Territory to British Columbia and the continental U.S. 2003-2011: Frustrated at lack of progress by North Slope producers on a pipeline, a state gas authority was created by an Alaska voter initiative in 2002. An independent board was created and Harold Heinze, a former ARCO Alaska president, was retained as CEO. Over several years, the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority, or ANGDA, pursued a gas pipeline and LNG project but also several concepts focused on getting North Slope gas to communi- ties in Interior and Southcentral Alaska. Initiatives included pipeline from the slope as well as other forms of energy, such as propane. ANGDA was an independent, voter-created entity. It was super- seded eventually by the creation of the Alaska Gas Development Corp., or AGDC, by the Legislature.
three producer companies worked in 2005 and 2006 with then-Gov. Frank Murkowski on the pro- posal for an all-land gas pipeline. The cost of the project was estimated at $20 billion. Significantly, this was the first effort under a formal partnership between the state and the producers. The Legislature had passed the Stranded Gas Development Act, which established the frame- work for state incentives for the project and a key element was to provide long-term “fiscal certainty” for the producers for state taxes. The idea of fiscal certainty was proposed through a contract with the producers. It was ultimately felt to be unconstitutional because of the provision in the state Constitution that no Legisla- ture can “bind” a future Legislature. This meant that there can be no guarantee that legislators in the future cannot change taxes without amendment to the state Constitution approved by voters. The ini- tiative failed when the producing companies would not move forward without the guarantee on taxes. 2007-08: Newly-elected Gov. Sarah Palin pro- posed a new plan in 2007 under her Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, or AGIA, a state initiative to grant
Gas pipeline project bids have come and gone, without success
EDITOR'S NOTE: Tim Bradner is a veteran Alaska journalist whose career spans
more than six decades and whose reporting has focused extensive- ly on Alaska politics, state government, energy, natural resourc- es and the economy. We asked him to provide an overview of the many attempts to push an LNG pipeline forward. BY TIM BRADNER ALASKA GAS PIPELINE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED, PLANNED AND WORKED ON FOR DE- CADES ALMOST SINCE OIL WAS DISCOVERED ON THE NORTH SLOPE IN 1968. Now here are plans again for moving the “stranded” North Slope natural gas to mar- ket. The latest proposal, by Glenfarne, is the furthest along, but hurdles remain on its fi- nances. Many ideas have been put forward over the years that have included not only pipe- lines but also gas-to-liquids plants that would convert the gas to liquid products that could be moved through the existing trans-Alas- ka oil pipeline. There are also ideas for large power plants on the North Slope that could send electricity south through direct current transmission lines were considered. Here are projects over the years: 1970: Alaskan Arctic Natural Gas, a consortium of U.S. and Canadian oil and gas producers and transmission companies, proposed a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, on the North Slope, east to the Mackenzie River valley in Canada. Dave Harbour, an Alaska business leader, helped lead this initiative. The project would have tapped gas discoveries
CONTINUED ON PAGE 14
2005-06: Building on their 2001 work, the
President Jimmy Carter signed a presidential decision in 1977 endorsing the Alaska Highway alternative proposed Northwest and Foothills. Mor- ris Thompson, a prominent Alaska Native Leader, was named the Alaska Vice President for Alaskan Northwest. The project became uneconomic when U.S. gas markets were deregulated by Congress, result- ing in a drop in U.S. domestic gas prices. 1983: An Alaskan firm, Yukon Pacific Corp., or YPC, was formed to pursue a gas pipeline built parallel to the Trans Alaska oil pipeline to a site for an LNG plant near Valdez, at Anderson Bay. Mead Treadwell, who later went on to serve as Alaska lieutenant governor, led this project. YPC secured permits and did considerable work including an Environmental Impact State- ment but the project did not proceed after North Slope producers expressed doubts about its via- bility. Interestingly, CSX Corp., a major U.S. railroad, took an ownership share in YPC. 1992: After the Yukon Pacific initiative failed to advance, North Slope producers BP, ExxonMobil and ARCO Alaska initiated their own studies for the first time of moving the stranded North Slope
in the MacKenzie River delta and transported this along with North Slope gas to the Lower 48. It would have been a 4,800-mile gas pipeline from the North Slope to the Lower 48. Canada blocked this because of unresolved aboriginal land claims along the Mackenzie valley, and in 1976, Canada’s National Energy Board ruled in favor of a competing project that would follow the Alaska Highway through Canada. 1974: The first proposal for a Trans-Alaska pipe- line to Southcentral Alaska and an LNG plant came from El Paso Natural Gas. The company proposed a pipeline to a LNG plant on the Kenai Peninsula south of Anchorage. Under the plan, LNG would be shipped to the U.S. West Coast, regasified and transported by pipeline to midwestern states. El Paso failed to move the project forward, however. 1977-78: In 1977 and 1978, the Alaskan North- west Alaskan and Foothills project moved to the forefront. Proposed by Northwest Energy Corp. and Foothills Pipeline, Ltd., a Canadian firm, the pipeline would have been a built parallel to the Trans Alaska oil pipeline to Interior Alaska and then southeast through Canada along the Alaska Highway.
PROUDLY OUTFITTING ALASKA’S WORKFORCE
SHOP ARIAT AT BIGRAYS.COM
1-800-478-3458 | BIGRAYS.COM Locally Owned and Operated
12
13
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2026
ALASKA LNG: THROUGH THE YEARS
V O L UVMOELU3M| EI S1S|UISES3U|ES2E|PSTUEM MB E R 2 0 2 64
pre-FEED work. Fluor was retained as a contractor and the estimated cost was reduced to $38 million, or about $43 billion adjusted for inflation. 2020-26: Following Gov. Dunleavy’s instruc- tions, AGDC undertook an effort to find a private company to lead the project and in early 2025 ExxonMobil introduced state officials to Glenfarne, a U.S. energy infrastructure company. Glenfarne had developed energy projects in Latin America, including an LNG import project, and was working to develop two LNG export projects on the U.S. Gulf Coast. In March 2025, AGDC selected Glenfarne to be its private partner. AGDC would retains 25% of Alaska LNG with Glenfarne as developer with a 75% ownership share. Under the agreement, Glenfarne would invest in the final engineering and cost estimates for the Alaska LNG project. Glenfarne has done some of that but the amount of spending has not been disclosed. ADGC also split the Alaska LNG project into two phases, the first phase being the 42-inch pipeline from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska to deliver gas to Alaska communities, and the second phase the large LNG export plant at Nikiski, near Kenai.
are long-lasting and steady. The three producers withdrew from the project but said the state, through AGDC, could continue permitting work and to obtain the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis- sion, or FERC, license so as to not lose the value of investments to date, including by the producers. ADGC did this. The FERC licensing was completed and the license was issued, making the project “shovel ready” with all of its major permits in place. 2018: In 2018, then-Gov. Bill Walker had reached a preliminary agreement with Chinese companies to invest in the project and purchase LNG. The Chinese were very interested and sent technical teams to Alaska to visit the North Slope, tour the pipeline route and meet with AGDC. However, U.S.-China trade tensions soured after President Donald Trump’s election and the Chinese interest waned. Gov. Mike Dunleavy was also elected governor and instructed AGDC to end its state-led initiative and find a private partner to lead Alaska LNG. The major producer BP, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips meanwhile expressed continued support, although ConocoPhillips withdrew so as to focus on oil development. BP and ExxonMobil worked helped AGDC reduce the capital cost estimated in the 2016
of approximately $43 billion for the project.
2016: With the pre-FEED cost estimate completed, in 2016 the three producers and AGDC asked Wood Mackenzie, the consulting firm, do a commercial feasibility and market analysis. Wood MacKenzie’s conclusion was that the project ap- peared competitive against U.S. Gulf of Mexico LNG producers but that it was disadvantaged because of its commercial structure, with 75% ownership held by the producing companies and 25% by the state’s AGDC. The problem was for the producers. The project appeared feasible but the investment rate of return for the producing companies was low comparable to oil and gas projects, which would have a higher return than a large infrastructure project like a pipeline. Return on investment for “upstream” projects, such as new oil development, might bring returns of 20% or more for producers while “midstream” projects bring lower returns, often in the 10% range, Wood Mackenzie said in presenta- tions of its study. Wood Mackenzie suggested that alternative commercial structures be considered to attract in- vestors who focus on large infrastructure projects and who are willing to accept lower returns that
Photo by Lee Leschper
Many efforts aimed at Alaska LNG have involved building a pipeline parallel to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).
2014: The state’s work on ASAP laid the foundation for the Alaska LNG Project, which is now underway. The large North Slope producers, having abandoned the idea of an overland pipeline through Canada, refocused on the overland pipe- line across Alaska to a large LNG plant in southern Alaska. A joint-venture of the three producers was formed that also included the state’s AGDC. It was important to have the state included, the produc- ers felt, because of its ownership of North Slope gas reserves under its royalty share of production. Having the state as a partner in the project would also reduce potential conflicts. Even as the state joined the gas consortium on the large pipeline and LNG project AGDC, the state gas corporation, continued work on the smaller ASAP, which was designed to serve only Alaska communities, as an energy-security backstop in case the larger LNG export plan did not proceed. Meanwhile, the urgency of dwindling Cook Inlet gas supply had lessened after Hilcorp Energy entered Cook Inlet in 2012 and began redeveloping aging Cook Inlet gas fields and establishing new gas reserves. 2015: Work continued on Alaska LNG by the consortium of the three producers with ExxonMobil leading the project with the state’s AGDC, which by now held a 25% interest in the project. The primary work was on developing a pre- Front End Engineering and Design, or pre-FEED, construction estimate. The pre-FEED cost $600 million with AGDC paying its 25% share. The pre- FEED was completed in 2016 with a cost estimate
The state ended the TransCanada agreement and paid the company $327 million for its work under an original agreement that provided up to $500 million in state matching funds. 2011: In 2011, Cook Inlet gas reserves were declining to the point where utilities in South- central Alaska worried they might be unable to secure enough fuel for space heating and power generation. An energy emergency in Alaska’s larg- est population areas seemed a distinct possibility. The Municipality of Anchorage began planning for electricity “brownouts” to conserve power. The Legislature responded with a plan for a small-diameter, 24-inch gas pipeline to be built from the North Slope to Interior and Southcentral Alaska. This became the Alaska Stand-Alone Pipeline Project, or ASAP. Responsibility to develop ASAP was given to a special subsidiary formed by the Alaska Housing Finance Corp., which had experience with special-purpose subsidiaries. A plan was developed and feasibility and preliminary engineering work was done by the new Alaska Gasline Development Corp., or AGDC, which was formed in 2013 as an AHFC subsidiary. AGDC’s plan for ASAP also included a natural gas processing plant on the North Slope to remove carbon dioxide. State and federal permits were applied for and received as well as a right-of-way lease across state of Alaska lands. The size of the pipeline was later changed from 24 inches to 36 inches to allow the pipeline to operate at a lower pressure, removing the need for gas compressor stations along the route.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 13
incentives for a gas pipeline through Canada. AGIA’s goal was to bring in a private pipeline company to build and own the project. A state license, with a $500 million state contribution, was awarded to TransCanada Corp., a major Canadian company. 2008: TransCanada was awarded a license by the state of Alaska in 2008, which granted the company incentives for a pipeline but that same year North Slope producers BP and ConocoPhillips announced their own initiative, the Denali project, to compete with TransCanada for the overland pipeline. Shortly after, ExxonMobil, also a North Slope gas owner, joined the Trans-Canada venture to compete with BP and ConocoPhillips’ Denali pipeline. Neither the TransCanada or Denali pipeline project moved forward. At that time Lower 48 drill- ers had perfected development of large shale gas resources with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of rock. The result was a boom in new gas production and falling gas prices in the con- tinental U.S. This made a long-distance overland pipeline from Alaska uneconomic. In 2011, Gov. Sean Parnell asked TransCan- ada and the producers consider once again a trans-Alaska pipeline and LNG alternative to export gas due to low U.S. gas prices and rising Asian LNG demand. TransCanada initially considered the LNG alter- native but then withdrew from the Alaska project.
Thousands of Miles of Experience Committed to Client Satisfaction Dedicated to Safety Excellence
Pipeline Construction & Maintenance | EPC Contracting Powerplant Construction | General Contracting Anchorage | Deadhorse | 907.278.4400 | www.pricegregory.com
14
15
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2026
ALASKA LNG: HOW THE STATE BECOME A PARTNER
V O L UVMOELU3M| EI S1S|UISES3U|ES2E|PSTUEM MB E R 2 0 2 64
STATE OF ALASKA'S ROLE IN SPOTLIGHT FOR YEARS
state investing in and owning a 25% share of the project through the state’s Alaska Gas Development Project came about. Owning part of the pipeline did not hap- pen when the Trans Alaska Pipeline System was built in the 1970s to ship North Slope oil. Though the years many Alaskans have regret- ted that the state didn’t have a stake in TAPS. The three major producers built, and own the oil pipeline. They now ship the state’s royalty oil share, earning profits from that. As the TAPS project was being organized in the early 1970s, there were ideas of the state owning a share, however. Then-Gov. Bill Egan wanted the state to own the entire project but the Legislature rejected the idea. The idea of even part ownership in TAPS never advanced. Interestingly, years later BP offered to sell its share of TAPS to the state on advantageous terms, but former Gov. Jay Hammond was cool to the initiative, so it did not happen. Years later, when ideas for the gas pipeline were advanced, the state was more open to becoming a partner. However, being a part- ner brought responsibilities because the state would pay its proportional share of costs, and its share of risks like cost overruns, but part- nership also brought advantages because the state would be “at the table,” with the other owners and participating in decisions to en- sure maximum local benefits. This could include making gas available to communities and ensuring Alaska work- ers and businesses are hired for work for the project. Alaska-hire, Alaska-buy and terms for gas supplied to Alaska utilities are now a part of the Alaska LNG project. Over the years, there were various pro- posals for how the gas project would be structured. Gov. Frank Murkowski pro- posed the state taking its royalty and tax share of gas and investing in the project in 2005. Two years later, Sarah Palin, then gov- ernor, proposed bringing in an independent pipeline company to develop the project. This was TransCanada. TransCanada’s proj- ect did not advance and the major the pro- ducers returned to promoting the project, but this time with the state as 25% partner. The producers withdrew in 2016, en- couraging the state to continue work. Gov. Bill Walker, in taking office, did that and found Chinese companies as potential part- ners. In 2018 newly-elected Gov. Mike Dun- leavy told AGDC, the state gas corporation, to find a new private investor, which was Glenfarne.
The idea of the state becoming a formal partner had its inception years ago when the produc- ers, then BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, and then-Gov. Frank Murkowski felt it would be advantageous to have the state formally in- volved in a North Slope gas pipeline.
State’s 25% share of the project is proposed through the AGDC BY TIM BRADNER AS THE EFFORT TO GET A NORTH SLOPE GAS PROJECT ENTERS A NEW PHASE, THERE’S A QUESTION PEOPLE OFTEN ASK: HOW AND WHY DID STATE GET INVOLVED AS A PART OWN- ER OF THE PROJECT? The idea of the state becoming a formal partner had its inception years ago when the producers, then BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, and then-Gov. Frank Murkowski felt it would be advantageous to have the state formally involved in a North Slope gas pipeline. The state is a major owner of natural gas on the North Slope through its royal- ty share of the gas. In purely commercial terms, if the state has a gas ownership share it is advantaged by shipping royal- ty its own gas through the pipeline and selling it rather than having the producers pay the royalty “in value,” or in cash, and taking on the responsibility of transport- ing and marketing the gas. By taking its gas “in kind,” state would earn revenues as a gas producer and mar- keting the gas itself. If the state owned a part of the pipeline equal to its share of gas ownership it would transport its gas through its share of the pipeline and earn revenues rather than paying other pipe- line owners, such as the producers, to transport the state’s gas. This would create a commercial align- ment among the gas owners, including the state. Revenues were maximized for each of the resource owners proportion- al to their shares of gas production. This worked out to roughly a three-quarter share of gas production, and pipeline own- ership, for the producers and a one-quar- ter share the state. This set the stage for the
Alaska's gas quest: A half-century of big ideas seeking a big solution
through it.
For more than half a century, Alaska has tried to answer a different and deceptively simple question: How do you get enormous quantities of natural gas from the North Slope to a market? The discovery of Prudhoe Bay in 1968 transformed Alaska's economic future, but it also created an unusual problem. The North Slope contained enormous quantities of natural gas associated with the oil production, yet the gas was stranded hundreds of miles from the state's population centers and thousands of miles from the Lower 48 and Asian energy markets. Oil had an obvious transportation solution. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System would carry crude from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, where tankers could take it to refineries. Natural gas was different. Moving it required either a massive pipeline, con- version into another product, liquefaction, or some technology that, at the time, existed more comfort- ably on the drawing board than in the Arctic. The result was one of the longest-running infrastructure searches in Alaska history. Thinking outside the pipeline The pipeline was never the only idea. Some of the proposals sound almost futuristic today. One concept envisioned submarine tankers carrying hydrocarbons beneath the Arctic ice, eliminating the need to construct an overland pipeline across hundreds of miles of difficult terrain. The idea was not merely science fiction. By the early 1980s, researchers had developed detailed designs for commercial submarine tankers, including a proposed 140,000-cubic-meter LNG submarine. The studies concluded that submarines could technically transport Arctic hydrocarbons beneath the ice and envisioned submerged loading facili- ties and surface unloading at the destination. The concept took advantage of something conventional ships could not: the ability to travel beneath seasonal Arctic ice rather than fight
Another idea looked up. In 1973, a study involving Purvin & Lee, Boeing, Air Products and Chemical and Transworld Gas Systems examined the possibility of using modified Boeing 747 aircraft to transport LNG from the North Slope. Under the concept, LNG would be produced on the Slope, loaded aboard specially modified aircraft and flown south to a tidewater facility. There, it could be trans- ferred to LNG tankers for delivery to customers. The study concluded the system was economically feasible under assumptions of the time. It was an extraordinary proposition: instead of building hundreds of miles of large-diameter pipe across Alaska, put the gas into liquid form and fly it out. The concept also illustrates how different the technological landscape looked in the early 1970s. The Boeing 747 was still a relatively new aircraft, having entered commercial service only a few years earlier. The possibility of using a giant wide-body aircraft as part of an energy transpor- tation system was being considered at essentially the same time the conventional pipeline solution was being debated. Turning gas into something easier to ship Another strategy was to avoid shipping natural gas at all. If the gas could not economically be transported to consumers, perhaps it could be converted into products that could. That thinking eventually led to one of the more ambitious alternatives: a large-scale petrochemi- cal industry based on North Slope gas. A consortium led by Dow Chemical and Shell Chemical undertook a major feasibility study. By 1981, the Dow-Shell Group had completed a 10-volume, $5.5 million study examining whether Alaska could support a world-scale petrochemical industry. The study concluded that such an industry could potentially be economically feasible, although a number of conditions would have to be met.
Service that you trust
from people that you know.
| petro49.com
16
17
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2026
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 3 | SEPTEMBER 2026
2026 SESSION DOMINATED BY TAX DISCUSSIONS
C CORPORATIONS VS. S CORPORATIONS For the oil and gas industry, the distinction is significant. A C corporation pays Alaska corporate income tax on its tax- able income. At the top bracket, that rate is 9.4%. An S corporation, by contrast, generally passes its income through to its owners for tax purposes. Because Alaska has no indi- vidual income tax, that income currently escapes an Alaska income tax at both levels. The Senate sought to change that equation. One version of the LNG legislation would have extended Alas- ka's corporate income tax to certain oil and gas pass-through en- tities with more than $1 million in taxable income. The proposal included graduated rates reaching 9.4%. The Department of Reve- nue estimated the change could generate as much as $100 million annually. The proposal was aimed primarily at large privately held oil and gas businesses, with Hilcorp emerging as the most prominent example. Glenfarne, which is privately held and is leading Alaska LNG, also became part of the discussion. Supporters argued that the current system creates an inequity: publicly traded oil companies pay corporate income taxes while comparable privately held producers can avoid the tax because of their corporate structure. Opponents countered that changing the rules in the middle of major investment decisions could discourage investment in Alas- ka's oil and gas sector. That disagreement ultimately became the Legislature's biggest obstacle to an LNG deal. THE LNG TAX BATTLE During the second special session, the Senate incorporated the pass-through tax into its version of HB 381. The Senate ultimately passed the legislation 11-8. The conference committee's compromise retained the expand- ed corporate tax but exempted income from the Alaska LNG proj- ect itself. The intent was to protect the project's financing prospects while capturing additional revenue from other oil and gas pass- through entities. The governor rejected the approach. When the House considered the compromise July 16, the vote ended in a 19-19 tie. Dunleavy had warned that he would veto leg- islation containing what he characterized as a targeted tax increase that could undermine the LNG project. The failure prompted the governor to call a third special session. For supporters of the corporate tax change, the issue was about more than simply raising revenue. They argued that Alaska needs a mechanism to replace some revenue that could be lost as producers shift investment toward natural gas. Industry groups have opposed the proposed expansion, warn- ing about its potential effect on future investment. A LAST-MINUTE COMPROMISE As the third special session progressed, Dunleavy moved closer to the Legislature's position. In August, the governor proposed a compromise that would impose a 2% corporate income tax on certain oil and gas S cor- porations and other pass-through businesses, while maintaining favorable treatment for the Alaska LNG project. The proposal was
substantially below the 9.4% maximum contained in the earlier legislative version. The proposal demonstrated how far negotiations had moved. The governor, who had initially rejected any new tax on oil and gas producers, was now willing to accept a limited tax on privately held producers in an effort to preserve the larger LNG project. But the compromise came too late. The governor introduced the proposal during the final weeks of the special session, while legislative leaders indicated that there were not enough votes to move it forward. The House majority an- nounced that it did not have the votes necessary to pass the admin- istration's legislation, and the Senate majority indicated it was not prepared to reconvene for a vote. The third special session ended without a resolution. AN UNFINISHED RESOURCE AGENDA The Legislature's work on oil and gas taxation is unlikely to end with the 2026 special sessions. The next Legislature will inherit the Alaska LNG debate, questions surrounding Cook Inlet's declining gas supply and the broader issue of whether Alaska's corporate tax structure appropriately treats publicly traded companies and pri- vately held pass-through businesses. The state remains committed in principle to attracting new in- vestment in oil, gas, mining and other resource sectors. But the year showed how difficult it can be to translate that commitment into tax policy that satisfies lawmakers, industry and investors simultaneously.
BY FIREWEED STRATEGIES
lar session, including measures involving education, municipal taxa- tion, occupational licensing, economic development and other areas. Among the resource-related measures was House Joint Resolution 18, urging support for Alaska LNG. The Legislature also passed leg- islation affecting municipal property-tax exemptions and other busi- ness and economic matters. But the most consequential resource-development issue — House Bill 381, introduced at the governor’s request — remained unresolved. HB 381 initially focused on changing the property-tax treatment of the proposed Alaska LNG pipeline and establishing an alternative volumetric tax on natural gas throughput. The project would include an approximately 800-mile pipeline, a North Slope gas treatment fa- cility and an LNG export terminal at Nikiski. Current cost estimates have reached roughly $44.5 billion to $54.5 billion, with the pipeline itself accounting for an estimated $13.2 billion to $16.9 billion. The fundamental argument was straightforward: Glenfarne, the project's lead developer, contends that the existing property-tax structure creates too much uncertainty for a project that will require enormous amounts of private financing. Lawmakers generally agreed that Alaska needs to improve the project's tax framework. They disagreed sharply over how much tax relief should be provided, what conditions should accompany it and whether other oil and gas companies should pay more to offset some of the state's potential revenue loss. THE OIL AND GAS TAX QUESTION At the center of the debate was an issue much larger than Alaska LNG: How Alaska should tax oil and gas companies as the state's tra- ditional production base changes. Alaska already collects substantial revenue from oil and gas through production taxes, royalties, property taxes and corporate income taxes. The state's oil production tax generally applies at a 35% rate to tax- able net value, while gas produced for sale is subject to a separate 13% gross-value production tax under current law. Alaska also imposes a graduated corporate income tax, with a top rate of 9.4%. The controversy in 2026 centered on which companies actually pay that corporate income tax. Traditional C corporations — including major publicly traded oil companies such as ConocoPhillips — are subject to Alaska's corpo- rate income tax. Privately held businesses organized as S corporations or other pass-through entities generally are not taxed at the entity level because their income flows through to their owners. That distinction dates to Alaska's decision to repeal its individ- ual income tax in the early 1980s. Because Alaska has no personal income tax, income passing through an S corporation generally isn't taxed at either the corporate or individual level. That structure became a major point of contention during the LNG debate.
THE ALASKA LEGISLATURE’S 2026 SESSION WILL BE REMEMBERED LESS FOR MAJOR BREAKTHROUGHS IN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT THAN FOR THE TAX AND POLICY BATTLES THAT CONSUMED MUCH OF ITS FINAL MONTHS — PARTICULARLY THE UNRESOLVED EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A TAX FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROPOSED ALASKA LNG PROJECT. After completing the 121-day regular session in May, lawmakers were unable to resolve Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s top legislative priori- ty: legislation intended to change the tax treatment of the proposed North Slope-to-Southcentral natural gas pipeline. That dispute ulti- mately led to three consecutive special sessions, with the final one expiring Aug. 25 without a bill reaching the governor. The outcome leaves Alaska LNG, and a broader debate over how Alaska taxes oil and gas development, as unfinished business for the next Legislature. The Legislature did enact a range of legislation during the regu-
ALASKA MINERALS INC
Remote Site Gear for the Last Frontier
8121 SCHOON STREET ANCHORAGE, AK 99518 Office: 907.522.3366 Mobile: 907.223.9452 Mike@AlaskaMineralsInc.com
MINING PRODUCTS
CAMP RENTAL SERVICES • Full-service Turnkey Camp Rentals • Heavy Duty Weatherport Tents • Fully Equipped Kitchen & Dining o Homestyle Cooking & Catering • Wash Tents with Showers & Laundry • Sleeper Tents with Beds & Heaters • Complete / Partial Setup & Removal • Logistics & Camp Consulting • Personnel Support o Camp Cooking Staff & Laborers • Starlink Satellite Internet • ATV, UTV & Snowmobile Rentals
• Baroid Drilling Products • Extreme Drilling Additives • Dynamics G-Ex Distributor
• Discoverer 2’ & 3’ Plastic Core Boxes • HQ, NQ & PQ Wooden Core Boxes • Heavy Duty Waxed Core Boxes • Wooden Core Run Blocks • Supersacks & Sample Bags ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS • Johnson PVC Riser, Screen & Prepacks • Locking & Non-Locking Caps • Manhole Covers & Protective Cases • Target Silica Sand
• Fuel Tank & Fly Tank Rentals • 20’ and 40’ Container Rentals
Powering Exploration Across Alaska — From Start to Finish. With 40+ years of boots-on-the-ground experience in Alaska and over half a century in the mining industry, we know what it takes to keep your project moving. From remote logistics to full-scope support, we’re your trusted partner in every phase of exploration.
18
19
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2026
Page 1 Page 2-3 Page 4-5 Page 6-7 Page 8-9 Page 10-11 Page 12-13 Page 14-15 Page 16-17 Page 18-19 Page 20-21 Page 22-23 Page 24-25 Page 26-27 Page 28-29 Page 30-31 Page 32-33 Page 34-35 Page 36-37 Page 38-39 Page 40-41 Page 42-43 Page 44-45 Page 46-47 Page 48Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator