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 1 | MARCH 2026
A YEAR OF PLENTY 2026 Offers Wealth of Opportunities for State
INSIDE THIS ISSUE n Juneau Fly-In Offers Chance to Engage With Legislators n Department of Interior Opens 2M Acres in Dalton Corridor n Glenfarne Continues Moving Alaska LNG Project Ahead n Alaska's Energy Comeback is Built on Stability n New Partnership to Expand Maritime Workforce Magazine of the Resource Development Council for Alaska | www.AKRDC.org
INDEX
VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 2 | SPRING 2025
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 1 | MARCH 2026
PAGE 10 STATE OFFICIALS LAUD NORTH SLOPE OPERATORS Despite facing developing headwinds of differing varieties, it's still full speed ahead for North Slope companies that are in advanced projects that will yield hundreds of thousands of barrels per day during peak production when all are online. See more on the oil outlook. PAGES 20-23 THE RDC GOES TO JUNEAU: FLY-IN A RESOUNDING SUCCESS The RDC's Juneau Fly-In is always an opportunity to advocate for responsible resource development here in Alaska with those individuals who help set and enact policies that will drive the future growth of all of our vital industries. See more from our time spent in Juneau. PAGE 36 TRANS ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM HAS SHAPED STATE When oil first began flowing through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) in 1977, it reshaped Alaska’s economy, politics, communities and identity. Nearly five decades later, TAPS remains one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever built.
THE EXPERTISE AND VERSATILITY TO MOVE PROJECTS FORWARD
10
1620-23
30 36
DEDICATED. RELIABLE. BUILT TO SERVE.
At TOTE, every shipment carries more than cargo - it carries momentum. With longer gate hours, reliable three-day transit, and the fastes turn-times in the market, we keep Alaska moving on schedule. Our award-winning customer experience means fewer delays, smoother handoffs, and people who know your business. Because for us, excellence isn’t a goal — it’s a responsibility.
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 | Editor: Tim Bradner | Production, Design: Will Leschper | Contributing Photographer: Judy Patrick
TOTE MARITIME ALASKA, LLC TOTEMARITIME.COM | 800.426.0074
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR ALASKA, INC.: 301 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Ste. 406, Anchorage, AK 99503 | resources@akrdc.org | 907-276-0700
2
7
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 1 | MARCH 2026
“The need for a strong, credible, statewide voice for responsible resource development has never been greater, and RDC is uniquely positioned to lead."
— Connor Hajdukovich, Executive Director, RDC
IT'S AN HONOR TO LEAD RDC'S RESPONSIBLE MISSION
D EAR MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS: For those I have not yet had the opportunity to meet, my name is Connor Hajdukovich, and I am honored to serve as the new Executive Director of the Resource Development Council for Alaska. During the past two years, I have had the privilege of serving RDC as Policy and External Affairs Coordinator, working closely with many of you on legislative priorities and strengthening our presence in Juneau and Washington, D.C. I am grateful for the trust placed in me to now lead this organization and build on its strong foundation. A little about me: I was born and raised in Fairbanks and earned my business degree from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Prior to joining RDC, I worked in Washington, D.C. for U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan and later within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, focusing on legisla- tive strategy and federal policy. Those experiences have reinforced my belief that Alaska’s resource industries are essential not only to our state’s economy, but to our nation’s long-term strength and security. As Executive Director, my focus is clear: strengthen RDC’s influence, expand our reach and deliver meaningful value to our members. RDC stands at an important moment. Alaska must maintain stable and competi- tive tax and regulatory policies to compete
for global capital and secure the long-term investment needed to grow our economy. Major projects across our core industries are advancing, and both state and federal policy landscapes continue to evolve. The need for a strong, credible, statewide voice for responsible resource development has never been greater, and RDC is uniquely positioned to lead. I am deeply honored to serve in this role and look forward to working along-
side our members, board and staff to ensure RDC remains the premier advo- cate for Alaska’s private sector resource economy. The future is bright for resource devel- opment in Alaska, and I am proud to help lead RDC into this next chapter! SINCERELY, CONNOR HAJDUKOVICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR ALASKA
4
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 1 | MARCH 2026
"The spirit of Alaska has always been defined by determination, grit, hard work and the belief that by working together for a common purpose, there is no obstacle we cannot overcome." — Scott Habberstad, President, RDC
LET OUR SHARED IDEALS SHINE
I OFTEN REFLECT ON THE INCREDIBLE RESPONSIBILITY AND OPPORTUNITY THAT RESTS WITH ALASKA’S ELECTED OFFICIALS. Each day, these dedicated individuals are called upon to make decisions that shape not only the present but also the future of gener- ations to come. On a recent legislative fly-in for RDC, I found myself thinking about the challenges our leaders face, the importance of mutual respect even in disagreement and the shared goal we all hold dear: growing Alaska’s economy and ensuring a brighter future for our great state, the next generation and gen- erations to come. Serving as an elected official in Alaska is a demanding and often underappreciated calling. Our leaders are tasked with balancing a diverse array of interests ranging from rural to urban community needs, from subsistence users to industry stakeholders. Every deci- sion — whether related to natural resource management, infrastructure development or education funding — requires careful consideration of its impacts, both immediate and long-term. The weight of public scrutiny is ever-present. The need to act transparently and responsibly is paramount to maintaining public trust. Elected officials must navigate complex challenges, such as budget constraints, rap- idly changing economic conditions and the unique logistical hurdles presented by Alas- ka’s vast geography. They do so while striving to honor the voices of all Alaskans, recogniz- ing that consensus is not always possible … but compromise and thoughtful leadership are always essential. In this environment, thoughtful decision-making is not only a skill but a necessity. The courage to make difficult choices — sometimes in the face of Alaska-sized criticism — is a testament to the character and resilience of those who serve.
also means building partnerships — between government, industry, our Alaska Native organization, and local communities — that are based on trust, transparency and a mutual commitment to Alaska’s prosperity. The decisions we make today will echo for decades, shaping the lives of our children and grandchildren. Our commitment to future generations must remain at the forefront of every policy, every project and every part- nership we pursue. Working together, we can create opportunities that empower Alaskans to thrive — now and in the years ahead. This commitment requires ongoing col- laboration. It calls on each of us to reflect on our dialogues with elected officials, from the local school board to the legislature. We must work with those officials so that together we can set aside our differences, listen to each other with empathy, and all act with integrity. This means recognizing that while our chal- lenges are real, our potential is even greater. The spirit of Alaska has always been defined by determination, grit, hard work and the belief that by working together for a com- mon purpose, there is no obstacle we cannot overcome. As we look ahead, we should all reaffirm our dedication to unity, respect and the ongo- ing work of building a stronger Alaska. Our elected officials shoulder immense responsi- bility, and they do so with the knowledge that their actions affect us all. By supporting them with respectful dialogue and a willingness to collaborate, we honor not only their service but also the ideals that make Alaska unique. Together, let’s champion a future defined by shared prosperity, stewardship and hope. Let’s strive to leave Alaska better than we found it — for ourselves, for each other and for those who will inherit this great land. Working together, we can achieve anything.
In the current climate, where opinions can be deeply divided about almost every topic, it is more important than ever to foster an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect. Disagreement is an inevitable part of the democratic process, but it does not have to lead to division. Instead, it can offer an opportunity for growth, understanding, and innovative solutions. When we engage in respectful dialogue, we demonstrate our commitment not only to our own beliefs but to the values that unite us as Alaskans. Civil discourse is the foundation of a healthy democracy. It enables us to listen, to learn and to find common ground even when our perspectives differ. By treating one another with respect — regardless of political affiliation or viewpoint — we honor the spirit of collaboration that has allowed Alaska to overcome challenges throughout its histo- ry. We need to remember that every voice matters, and that each conversation holds the potential to move us closer to our shared goals. At the heart of our collective efforts is a unified vision: the sustainable growth and de- velopment of Alaska’s economy for the benefit of all who call this state home. We recognize the immense potential of our natural resourc- es, from energy and minerals to fisheries, forests and tourism. Responsible development of these resources can generate jobs, sup- port families and provide the foundation for strong communities. Economic growth must be pursued through responsible resource development. This ensures that Alaska’s natural beauty and abundance are preserved for the next gener- ation and for generations to come. It means investing in education, infrastructure and innovation so that our state remains com- petitive and resilient in a changing world. It
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.
6
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 1 | MARCH 2026
LEGISLATURE DRILLS INTO PROPOSED NEW TAXES
Senate Resources Committee proposes rewrite of oil tax code BY TIM BRADNER THE 2026 LEGISLATIVE SESSION GOT OFF TO A BUSY START AND MAY GO DOWN AS ONE OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL IN RECENT YEARS. That will depend on whether any of a se- ries of bills proposed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy passes the Alaska Legislature in Juneau. The legislation is part of a fiscal policy package the governor has put forth that has been anticipated for some time. It’s an ambitious set of bills, combining a set of revenue proposals including two that affect the oil and gas industry along with a broad- based seasonal sales tax, and a new state tax on Internet retail transactions. What may be the most controversial measure put forth is a proposed constitutional amend- ment that makes structural changes in the state’s $85-billion-plus Alaska Permanent Fund but also puts the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) into the Alaska Constitu- tion as a guarantee. The oil and gas tax bills drew early criti- cism from the Alaska Oil and Gas Associa- tion, the industry trade association. The in- dustry tax change proposed is an increase in the minimum production tax paid by petro- leum producers from 4% to 6% of gross rev- enue. Legislators are already making changes to the governor’s bills. The Senate Resources Committee has proposed a total rewrite of the state petroleum tax code, which could have major consequences, and the state sales tax is now considered unlikely to pass. The Senate committee’s proposal would shift Alaska’s oil production tax away from a net-profits type tax in place since 2006 and to a tax on gross revenues. This would be consequential because it does not consider field production or capital costs, which are currently are allowed as deductions. Under
Photo by Judy Patrick
Legislators are looking at multiple proposals involving taxes on the oil and gas industries.
The other revenue proposal that will af- fect businesses, including the petroleum in- dustry is the state sales tax advocated by the governor that is on the back burner. Alaska local governments have long had sales taxes but there has never been a state sales tax. While the most direct effects will be on ev- eryday purchases by consumers, businesses will pay the tax on their purchases. The major problem with a state sales tax affects both consumers and businesses. It is that the state sales tax will be added to municipal sales taxes where they exist. For example, Palmer, in the Matanuska-Susit- na Borough, has a 3% sales tax. The state’s summer 4% sales tax would be added to this for a combined tax of 7%. In the winter season, the state rate drops to 2%. The com- bined tax rate would then be 5% in Palmer. Anchorage and Fairbanks currently have no local sales taxes so only the state tax, if it is enacted, would apply. There are other issues, however. Municipalities typically have various exemptions and “caps” on sales taxes, such as a $1,000 cap on the sales value being tax- es. Many of these are unlikely to be allowed in the state tax.
certain circumstances, such as in a lower oil price environment, the tax on gross reve- nue can weigh heavily on the economics of marginal fields and new projects. The other revenue measure directly affecting industry is a plan for a 15-cent- per-barrel fee charged to producers for oil shipped through the Trans Alaska Pipe- line System (TAPS). The governor has said these revenues would be used for mainte- nance of the TAPS corridor, and the state Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) said the money can be used to help maintain the Dalton High- way, the 414-mile gravel road that connects the Interior Alaska highway system to the North Slope. That is a small upside for industry. The Dalton is a state highway with its upkeep funded from the DOTPF’s budget and state general fund revenues. Those are very tight and the state has been struggling to keep the Dalton in reasonable shape for industry activity. That has resulted in wear on trucking equipment, damage to loads and slower speeds for truckers, all of which add to the cost of moving supplies and equipment to the North Slope.
Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy at the signing of the new public land order.
DOI OPENS 2.1M ACRES IN DALTON CORRIDOR
Resource development opportunities, control of own state touted THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IN LATE FEBRUARY ISSUED PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 7966 IN ALASKA’S DALTON UTILITY CORRIDOR, OPENING APPROXIMATELY 2.1 MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND TO LOCATION AND ENTRY UN- DER THE PUBLIC LAND AND MINING LAWS. This marks a historic step forward in fulfilling the State of Alaska’s land enti- tlement. The order revokes two previous
withdrawals north of the Yukon River — Public Land Orders 5150 and 5180 — ex- panding opportunities for resource devel- opment and enhancing the State’s control over its own destiny. “President Trump was clear — prom- ises made are promises kept and this de- cision is about unlocking opportunity for American Energy Dominance to lower costs for all American families,” said Sec- retary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “By opening these lands, we are empowering Alaska to chart its own course and devel- op energy, minerals and infrastructure that strengthen America’s security and
prosperity.” “Today’s action by Secretary Burgum is a milestone for Alaska’s self-determi- nation. I want to thank President Trump and Secretary Burgum for continuing to deliver on promises, even those promises made decades ago,” said Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy. “Alaskans know what’s best for Alaska and revoking these Public Land Orders will empower Alaska to chart our own future on these lands.” The action clears the way for Alaska to advance its remaining land entitlements
CONTINUED ON PAGE 11
8
9
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 1 | MARCH 2026
STATE OFFICIALS LAUD NORTH SLOPE OPERATORS
Hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day to be added to output BY TIM BRADNER NORTH SLOPE OIL OPERATORS ARE RUNNING AT FULL THROTTLE DESPITE SOME HEADWINDS DEVELOPING FOR THE INDUSTRY. Oil prices are lower than hoped for, and prices for steel and other materials are driv- ing up oilfield costs. There’s intense compe- tition for equipment and skilled labor on the Slope, which helps drive increases. San- tos Ltd. and ConocoPhillips both say their new projects, Pikka and Willow, will cost more than their original estimates. Still, it’s full speed ahead. Companies are heavily invested in getting new fields in production on, or a little ahead, of sched- ule. They’ll get it done. It’s too late to back out now. This is the bullish message state officials gave state legislators in a January briefing. Derek Nottingham, director of the state Division of Oil and Gas, and Travis Peltier, reservoir engineer in the division, reviewed activity levels in a presentation in late Jan- uary to the Finance Committee of the state House of Representatives. In total, North Slope companies are in advanced projects that will total hundreds of thousands of barrels per day (b/d) of peak production when all are online, the House committee was told. This includes 80,000 b/d at the Santos/Repsol Pikka Phase One, now about 90% complete; another 80,000 b/d from Pikka Phase Two by the same companies; 180,000 b/d in early-to-mid 2029 from ConocoPhillips’ Willow project, now 50% complete; and another 20,000 b/d from ConocoPhillips’ CD8, a new, smaller project in the Colville River Unit. “First oil” is expected in 2030 from CD- 8. Then there’s 40,000 b/d in added oil from two new production pads on the western end of the Prudhoe Bay field, Nottingham
The Dalton corridor includes key infrastructure such as the Trans Alaska Pipeline System and proposed projects like the Alaska LNG pipeline and proposed Ambler Road. The revocation supports efforts to expand domestic energy and mineral production under Executive Order 14153 and Secretary’s Order 3422, both titled “Unleashing American Energy.”
Photo by Judy Patrick The North Slope is set to add substantial oil production this year and in coming years with multiple projects moving full steam ahead.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 9
under the Alaska Statehood Act. This revocation allows approximately 2.1 million acres of “top filed” land (land previously unavailable for state selec- tion but which Alaska has long sought to acquire), to become effective state selections. The Bureau of Land Management is working with the Alaska to identify which of those lands it desires to take title to, moving closer to fulfilling its remain- ing 5.2-million-acre entitlement. This will give Alaska great- er control over its natural resources and economic future. “Today’s revocation is a major step forward for Alaskans to realize the promise the federal government made to us more than 60 years ago — a statehood land entitlement for Alaska to develop its resources and support its residents,” said Alaska Department of Natural Resources Commission- er-designee John Crowther. “We will continue to work in coordination and cooperation with the Department of the Interior on our relinquishment plan to ensure that the state’s highest-priority acreage will be available for transfer to the people of Alaska.” As part of this revocation process, the State of Alaska has committed to a good faith plan for relinquishment of excess statehood selections to address “over-selection” in compli- ance with the Alaska Lands Transfer Acceleration Act. “We are proud of this major milestone and the partnership that we have forged with the state.” said BLM Alaska State Di- rector Kevin Pendergast. “This is federal–state collaboration at its best; we’ll continue working closely with them on our shared commitments to fulfilling land entitlements.”
and Peltier said. These are the Omega and I-Pad projects being developed by Hilcorp Energy, the operator at the Prudhoe Bay field. First oil is expected at Omega in 2028 and from I-Pad between 2028 and 2030. About 40,000 b/d of new production is ex- pected when both new pads are in opera- tion, the legislators were told. All of these projects begin production on different schedules. Of the two big ones, Pikka Phase One comes online in 2026, fol- lowed by Willow in 2029. Field operators typically ramp up production as fast as is prudent to begin recouping heavy capital investments, so the expected output should be achieved soon. A peak production “pla- teau” period usually follows. Meanwhile, the large producing “lega- cy” fields on the slope continue to do well, Nottingham and Peltier told legislators. Ag- ing producing fields typically decline grad- ually, but in 2025, the North Slope produc- tion increased by about 1.5%, or 7,029 b/d. Some fields did decline but others showed gains thanks to new drilling and well work by operating companies.
The large Prudhoe Bay field showed a small overall decline, as did smaller fields like GMT-1 and GMT-2 in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). The small Endicott and Northstar fields, both aged, also dipped in output. But these were offset by gains in ConocoPhillips’ Kuparuk River field and particularly in Hilcorp Ener- gy’s Milne Point field, which has been a star performer under Hilcorp’s management. The small Nikaitchuq and Oooguruk fields, both mature fields, showed excellent base performance, Nottingham and Pelti- er said. There were even improvements at the small Badami field east of Prudhoe Bay which has faced challenges. Point Thomson had a similar story. Point Thomson is the large condensate field also east of Prudhoe where production was curtailed last year because of pipeline difficulties. At Badami, a new well, B1-33A, is producing as much as the total production from the from the field, the legislators were told. At Point Thomson, a second production well being drilled this winter by Hilcorp, the operator, will increase production next year.
10
11
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
Page 40/C16 Ruen Drilling Back Page Ad
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 1 | MARCH 2026
GLENFARNE MOVING FORWARD ON ALASKA LNG
Developer announces flurry of conditional agreements on pipeline BY TIM BRADNER GLENFARNE GROUP LLC, MAJORITY OWNER AND DEVELOPER OF THE ALASKA LNG PROJECT, ANNOUNCED A SERIES OF CONDITIONAL CON- TRACTS FOR THE ALASKA LNG PROJECT PHASE ONE, THE 42-INCH PIPELINE FROM PRUDHOE BAY TO SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA. Phase One is focused on rapidly de- livering reliable, affordable natural gas to Alaskans, said Brendan Duval, CEO of Glenfarne. “By aligning construction, pipe supply, gas supply and in-state customers, we are advancing Alaska LNG in a concrete way that is practical, financeable and focused on delivering real benefits to Alaskans. Glenfarne and the many companies in- volved in the announcements have dedi- cated significant time, resources and ex- pertise as we simultaneously and rapidly progress so many different aspects of the project,” Duval said in a statement. Alaska LNG is being developed through the entity 8 Star Alaska LLC, which is 75% owned by Glenfarne and 25% owned by the State of Alaska through the Alaska Gasline Development Corpo- ration (AGDC). Glenfarne is developing Alaska LNG in financially independent phases to ac- celerate project execution. Phase One con- sists of a 739-mile, 42-inch pipeline con- structed in four simultaneous sections, or spreads, to deliver gas from Alaska’s North Slope to meet Alaska’s domestic energy needs. Phase One of the pipeline may also in- clude the 63-mile, 32-inch Point Thomson Lateral Pipeline. If the needed investment funds (esti- mated at over $10 billion) can be secured
Alaska LNG Timeline and Milestones
and a Final Investment Decision is made soon, Glenfarne is targeting mechanical completion of the pipeline in 2028 and delivery of first gas in 2029. Phase Two will add the large LNG liquefaction plant planned at Nikiski, near Kenai, and relat- ed infrastructure to export 20 million tons per year of LNG to customers, mostly ex- pected to be in Asia. Glenfarne has provisionally named Worley Limited to provide Engineering, Procurement and Construction Manage- ment services for Phase One. This follows Worley’s completion at the end of 2025 of Phase One engineering work sufficient for a final investment decision, when it is Key Activities and Milestones March 2025: Glenfarne Alaska LNG, LLC becomes majority owner (75%) and lead developer of the project, with AGDC retaining 25%. Development focus turns to pipeline first. May–June 2025: Partnership with Worley begins final engineering and cost validation for the pipeline to support a Final Investment Decision (FID). Current: Glenfarne awaiting Final In- vestment Decision for the domestic pipeline; issues conditional awards to multiple compa- nies for pipeline construction. 2026–2028: Pipe manufacturing, right-of- way preparation, and mainline construction Here’s a breakdown of the Alaska LNG project — including what each phase involves, key recent developments and projected timing of milestones: Phase 1 — Domestic Pipeline Infra- structure: Build a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to central and south Alaska to deliver gas for domestic energy demand first — independent of the export facilities.
made. The conditional award remains subject to the completion of a definitive agree- ment, Duval said. Glenfarne also announced conditional awards for pipeline construction and sup- ply following a bid process that began with 20 participants. The following companies and suppliers have received a conditional award for pipeline construction that in- cludes comprehensive pricing and tech- nical specifications, and reflects specific roles in the multi-spread construction strategy for the Phase One pipeline and 2028–2030 (Target): Major construction of liquefaction trains and export terminals continues. 2030–2032 (Projected Start): LNG ex- ports commence from Nikiski once facilities are complete and commissioned. Key Activities and Milestones Concurrent construction: Phase 2 pipeline segment (Cook Inlet) will likely be built roughly at the same time as the LNG export plant once FID is achieved. 2026 (Target): Glenfarne expects to take Final Investment Decision on LNG export facilities after Phase 1 progress and commer- cial commitments. anticipated; mechanical completion targeted by 2028. 2029: Pipeline delivers first gas to in- state utilities and other customers — fulfilling Alaska’s internal energy needs. Phase 2 — LNG Export & Liquefaction Terminal: Build the LNG liquefaction and export facilities at Nikiski, Alaska, to ship up to 20 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of LNG to global markets.
PROUDLY PROVIDING ALASKA with underground, surface and helicopter supported core drilling for mineral exploration and geotechnical work.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 14
800-322-3201 • office@ruendrilling.com ruendrilling.com
12
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
VOLLUMEE1 3| I|SISUSEU E2 |1 S| UMMA RMCEHR 2 0 2 64
power plant to supply power to the mine. “Our agreements with ENSTAR and Donlin help ensure that the pipeline can deliver competitively priced natural gas within Alaska. We recognize the critical role that the pipeline will play in the future of Alaska’s economy and we are in discus- sions for gas sales to additional customers that we look forward to serving,” Duval said. Glenfarne became lead developer of Alaska LNG in March 2025 in an agree- ment with the AGDC. Since then, Glen- farne has secured preliminary commercial commitments from leading LNG buyers in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand for 11 MTPA of LNG. Glenfarne has also entered into stra- tegic partnerships with Baker Hughes, which will be an investor and a key equip- ment supplier, Danaos, which will be an investor and facilitate the construction and operation of at least six LNG carriers, and POSCO International, which will be an investor and has also signed an LNG purchase agreement and will supply steel.
ers for gas sales to the pipeline, ensuring natural gas supply for Phase One. These include a Gas Sales Precedent Agreement with ExxonMobil for gas along with a Gas Sales Precedent Agreement with Hilcorp Alaska for additional volumes of gas. These are in addition to the previously announced Gas Sales Precedent Agree- ment with Pantheon Resources and its subsidiary, Great Bear Pantheon LLC, to supply natural gas. In parallel, Glenfarne has advanced agreements with major in- state customers, including a non binding letter of intent with ENSTAR Natural Gas Company for a 30 year supply of natural gas from the Alaska LNG pipeline to EN- STAR. The arrangement will depend on negotiation of definitive agreements and approval by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Glenfarne also recently announced a letter of intent with Donlin Gold Mine to deliver up to 50 million cubic feet per day of natural gas and cooperation on the development and construction of a 315-mile-long natural gas pipeline and a
struction subsidiary Spiecapag and U.S. Pipeline; Spiecapag is a leading interna- tional pipeline construction contractor; U.S. Pipeline is a Texas-based full-service construction company with expertise in pipelines, facilities and project manage- ment operating in the U.S. and interna- tional markets. “These world-class pipeline construc- tion partners were selected based on their qualifications and experience, and each has dedicated a significant amount of time and resources in estimating and bidding for these roles, and their early involve- ment is foundational for this pipeline,” Duval said The awards also remain subject to the completion of definitive construction agreements, he said. Phase One (the pipeline) will require 700,000 metric tonnes of API 5L X70 line pipe for the main line and an additional 25,000 metric tonnes of line pipe for the Point Thomson Lateral. (Note: A “tonne” is 2,200 pounds and is a unit of weight commonly used internationally, as com-
pared to the “ton” of 2,000 pounds used in the U.S. as a unit of measurement for weight.) API 5L X70 line pipe is a high- strength, high-toughness steel pipe wide- ly used in the transmission of oil, gas, and water over long distances. The “X70” designates a minimum yield strength of 70,000 psi. Glenfarne also has executed prelimi- nary agreements for approximately two- thirds of the needed line pipe to these suppliers: n Corinth Pipeworks S.A., based in Greece, is one of the world’s leading man- ufacturers of steel pipes for the energy sector. n Europipe GmbH is an internation- al leader in manufacturing high quality large-diameter steel pipeline with a strong global track record. n As previously announced, POSCO International, of South Korea, has agreed to supply a portion of steel for pipeline fabrication. Glenfarne also announced multiple agreements with North Slope produc-
struction. n
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 12
Joint venture between Associated Pipe Line Contractors Inc., Doyon Ener- gy Services LLC and Cruz Construction Inc.; Associated Pipe Line, based in Texas, serves the oil and gas industry with pipe- line construction and pipeline integrity; Alaska-based Doyon specializes in Arctic pipeline construction and associated in- frastructure. Doyon is an Alaska Native regional corporation based in Fairbanks and is also engaged in North Slope drill- ing services though its subsidiary, Doyon Drilling; Cruz Construction is an Alaska oilfield support and heavy civil construc- tion company with extensive experience on Alaska’s North Slope. n Joint venture between Barnard Pipeline Inc. and SICIM S.p.A.; Barnard is a Montana-based provider of complex oil and gas transmission projects; SICIM is an Italy-based international contractor providing EPC services to the energy in- dustry, delivering megaprojects in remote locations. n Joint venture between VINCI Con-
the Point Thomson Lateral: n MasTec Inc. subsidiary Precision Pipeline LLC is a Wisconsin-based firm offering large mainline construction and other services with experience on large natural gas pipelines. n Quanta Services Inc. subsidiary Price Gregory International, based in Tex- as, has a long history in Alaska and played a pivotal role in constructing segment three of TAPS. n Joint bid between Michels Pipe- line Inc. and ASRC Energy Services — Houston Contracting Company Inc., a subsidiary of ASRC Energy Services LLC; Michels is a Wisconsin-based diversified pipeline construction company recog- nized for project excellence worldwide, including work in Alaska; Houston Con- tracting Company is one of Alaska’s larg- est pipeline construction companies with extensive experience in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline Sys- tem maintenance, operations and con-
PROUDLY OUTFITTING ALASKA’S WORKFORCE SINCE 1947
1-800-478-3458 | BIGRAYS.COM
14
15
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
VOLLUMEE1 3| I|SISUSEU E2 |1 S| UMMA RMCEHR 2 0 2 64
in the Inlet. From there, gas would flow through an existing pipeline from the platform into the regional gas transmission sys- tem, under the plan. About 22 billion cu- bic feet per year of gas could be supplied, Rob Bryngelson, Cook Inlet LNG’s project lead, said in a statement. The problem faced by regional utilities is that gas production from Cook Inlet’s aging fields is declining and expected to fall below the region’s needs by 2028. State officials hope the need for LNG imports would be temporary, a stopgap until a hoped-for large gas pipeline can be built from the North Slope. Utilities can’t wait, however. They are required by state regulators to be able to supply consumers’ energy needs, meaning natural gas in Southcentral Alaska. Much of Alaska’s population lives in the region and depends on gas for space heating and, to a large extent, power generation. Only one of the three competing im- port plants is likely to be approved by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and built. All of the projects are competing to secure approvals and to line up LNG suppliers and customers. Sean Kolassa, president of Harvest Midstream Co., a Hilcorp Energy affiliate, said the company could convert the exist- ing export plant to an import facility for a capital cost of between $300 million and $350 million, and be able to handle 20 bil- lion cubic feet per year to the regional util- ities. Kolassa said the plant could be ex- panded to a capacity of handling 73 billion cubic feet per year with the addition of a third LNG storage tank to the two now at the site. The added tank would cost about $150 million, he said. He said Harvest has the ability to get its project built and operating in two years because of the advantage of having exist- ing infrastructure at the former gas export plant and an existing FERC license that needed only an amendment to its license. Chugach Electric CEO Arthur Miller has said that timing meshes with his utility’s
need for more gas. John Sims, President of ENSTAR, has a different view. He said the competing plan for a new-build project by Glenfarne would cost about $500 million. Although it is not as far along as Harvest’s plan, it would have the advantage of being larger and able to import about 120 billion cubic feet per year, enough to supply all of the region’s needs with capacity for taking on new customers such as mining projects. Also, Glenfarne is now working with the State of Alaska on the large Alaska LNG Project which could have a large 42- inch gas pipeline built from the North Slope and a large LNG export plant built at Nikiski. If Alaska LNG is built, the facilities planned for LNG imports, such as a ma- rine terminal and storage tanks, could be- come part of the export plant, Sims said. Its expected $500 million in costs could be “rolled into” the larger project. This could result in a substantial savings to gas and electric consumers, he said.
COOK INLET LNG IMPORT PLANS TAKING SHAPE Photo Courtesy Marathon The mothballed LNG export plant at Nikiski could return to the production fold through a partnership between Harvest Midstream Co. and Chugach Electric Association.
Three projects seeking to alleviate declines in Alaska's supply BY TIM BRADNER PLANS BY COMPANIES TO IMPORT LIQUE- FIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) INTO COOK INLET ARE MOVING TO AN ADVANCED STAGE. UTILITIES ARE LOOKING TO SHIP IN LNG TO MEET AN EX- PECTED SHORTFALL IN REGIONAL NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION IN SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA.
There are two projects planned, now joined by a third, state legislators were told in briefings. The most advanced project is one by Harvest Midstream Co. in partner- ship with Chugach Electric Association, the state’s largest electric utility. Harvest recently acquired the former ConocoPhil- lips LNG export plant at Nikiski, in South- central Alaska, and is asking regulators to approve a conversion of the plant — moth- balled since 2015 — to import liquefied gas. A second proposal is by Glenfarne, a U.S. energy infrastructure developer, to
build a new, standalone import facility, also at Nikiski, in an agreement with EN- STAR Natural Gas Co., the natural gas dis- tribution company serving Southcentral Alaska. A new contender has now entered the competition. Cook Inlet LNG, a partner- ship of Louisiana-based Gardes Holdings and Glacier Oil & Gas Corp., a small In- let oil and gas producer. Cook Inlet LNG announced a plan in late January to bring a Floating Storage Regasifcation Unit (FSRU) to Cook Inlet and moor the facili- ty at Glacier’s producing Osprey platform
16
17
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
VOLLUMEE1 3| I|SISUSEU E2 |1 S| UMMA RMCEHR 2 0 2 64
DONLIN GOLD PROJECT MOVES TOWARD FINAL LAP
Donlin Gold: Fluor Corp. to lead Bankable Feasibility Study
confident that Fluor is the right partner at the right time to help move the project forward.” A detailed schedule and budget are ex- pected to be shared in the coming months as scope alignment with specialist contractors is finalized. Requests for proposals for specialist contractors covering major infrastructure and processing components were issued in late 2025 and will be incorporated into the BFS as selections are finalized. In parallel, Donlin Gold continues to build its owner’s project team and advance site activities that support the next phase of development. This work includes geotechnical drilling and materials assessments along the planned upriver port and access road to support detailed engineering and constructability. These efforts are being advanced concur- rently to support an integrated BFS and posi- tion the project for the next phase following completion of the study and project financing.
engineering design, cost accuracy, construc- tion planning and schedule development to support a high-quality, investment-grade study. Fluor was selected following a compet- itive bidding process that included multiple engineering firms. Fluor will be responsible for integrating several specialist workstreams into a coordinated project framework, including key infrastructure and processing elements such as the power plant, natural gas pipeline, pressure oxidation circuit and oxygen plant. “Fluor’s selection reflects their global leadership in engineering and their capa- bility to manage complex, multidisciplinary projects in remote locations,” said Frank Arcese, Donlin Gold Project Director. “Their expertise in front-end engineering design, integrated EPCM execution, project controls and risk management brings the rigor and precision needed at this stage of the BFS. I am
Donlin Gold has selected Fluor Corp. as the engineering firm to lead the project’s Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS), a key step as the Donlin Gold project advances toward financing and a financial investment decision (FID). The BFS is a comprehensive evaluation of engineering, cost, schedule and execution planning, ensuring the project is techni- cally sound, responsibly planned with the long-term interests of communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region. “Launching our BFS with Fluor marks an exciting new chapter in the Donlin Gold story,” said Todd Dahlman, general manager of Donlin Gold. “We’re looking forward to a dynamic and productive year as we lay the groundwork for a FID.” Donlin Gold is advancing the study using a disciplined, execution-focused approach informed by experience delivering large, com- plex projects. The emphasis is on integrating
Mine developers plan for Final Investment Decision to be made BY TIM BRADNER AFTER DECADES OF EXPLORATION, PLAN- NING AND PERMITTING, AND OWNERSHIP, THERE COULD BE A FINAL INVESTMENT DECISION COM- ING FOR THE BIG DONLIN GOLD PROJECT. With an estimated resource of 39 mil- lion ounces of resources, this is one of the biggest undeveloped gold projects in the world. There have been hiccups, including two changes of ownership over the years. There have been lawsuits, too, from those who don’t want the mine to be built despite the huge benefits it would bring to the Yu- kon-Kuskokwim Region in southwest Alas- ka, one of Alaska’s most economically chal- lenged regions. Here’s the latest: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a new study underway of the environmental effects of a spill of tail- ings that would be stored at the mine if it is built. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is being prepared by the Corps that will describe the impacts. This is being done in response to an Alaska federal district court decision in a lawsuit brought by local tribes. Public comments on the early phase of the corps’ study were accepted through late February. Another round of public com- ments will be accepted when the draft of the analysis is released this fall. The final SEIS decision is expected in May 2027. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that an earlier analysis by the Army Corps involved a tailings spill that was too small. U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason agreed and ordered the Army Corps to redo its analysis, assuming a larger spill. That is the work now underway. What is
Photo Courtesy Donlin Gold
significant is that the judge did not tell the agency what size of a larger spill it should assess for the analysis. That was left to the agency. Gleason also did not void the fed- eral permits that were issued several years ago, particularly the Army Corps’ Section 404 dredge and fill permit. The Donlin Gold developers, at the time led by Barrick Gold but including NOVA- GOLD, had been working on its permits for years. A detailed Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Army Corps to support the permits was five years in the making. However, the decision to assess a smaller spill of tailings, which seemed reasonable at the time, providing mine opponents with an opening for their legal challenge. However, Gleason’s decision was narrow, telling the defendants, the mining companies, just to fix the defect. The rem- edy was to assess a larger spill for analysis and issue an SEIS, which is required under federal law. The mine developers, now NOVA- GOLD Resources, a Vancouver, B.C.-based
exploration firm, and Paulson Advisors, a mining investor, have separately made sig- nificant new progress toward a Final Invest- ment Decision, which they hope will now come in 2027. The litigation hiccup aside, the companies have made major invest- ments in new drilling to confirm the gold resource estimates and conducting geo- technical work on the siting for mine facil- ities. The ground is now laid for the mine feasibility study, a detailed look at the eco- nomics of the project that will also produce an updated cost estimate. Mine developers also do preliminary feasibility studies to provide an early look at project economics but it is the final feasibil- ity study that is done after all the geologic resource work and engineering is complete. Usually, the final investment decision fol- lows the final feasibility work, assuming it shows positive results. With the final study on track for late 2027 and the SEIS on the corps’ new spill risk assessment due early that year, the stage could be set for the in- vestment decision after decades of work.
GROWING OPPORTUNITY. ROOTED IN RESPECT.
18
19
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
LEGISLATIVE FLY-IN TO JUNEAU
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 1 | MARCH 2026
Thank you to all of the RDC board members who traveled to Juneau for our annual Legislative Fly-In! Our group composed of members from Alaska's oil and gas, mining, fisheries, tourism and forestry industries met with more than 25 legislators and govern- ment officials over the course of two days in January. The Fly-In is always an oppor- tunity to advocate for responsible resource development here in Alaska with those individuals who help set and enact policies that will drive the future growth of all of our vital industries. In addition to sharing our sto- ries and discussing current oppor- tunities and challenges we face collectively, we also had a great time hosting a packed room of pol- icymakers and industry partners at our biannual legislative reception. It's inspiring and impressive to see such a diverse group work together to help shape policy and grow Alaska's economy!
Photos by Judy Patrick
20
21
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
LEGISLATIVE FLY-IN TO JUNEAU
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 1 | MARCH 2026
Photos by Judy Patrick
22
23
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
RDC STAFF SPOTLIGHT
LEGISLATIVE FORECAST BREAKFAST FORUM
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 1 | MARCH 2026
CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR JENNIFER KUHLMANN!
RDC Membership & Events Manager earns prestigious designation THE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR ALASKA IS PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THAT JENNIFER KUHLMANN, RDC’S MEMBERSHIP & EVENTS MANAGER, HAS EARNED THE DISTIN- GUISHED IOM (INSTITUTE FOR ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT) GRADUATE RECOGNITION FROM THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. The IOM designation is awarded to non- profit professionals who complete 96 credit hours of advanced course instruction in non- profit management. The rigorous program is delivered through four intensive, week-long sessions taught by university professors, in- dustry experts and leading practitioners in the Chamber and association industries. The Institute for Organization Manage- ment is designed to enhance professional performance, elevate standards across the nonprofit sector, and recognize leaders who demonstrate the knowledge essential to suc- cessfully managing complex organizations in today’s ever-evolving environment.
Thank you to those who attended the joint RDC and The Alaska Support Industry Alliance Legislative Forecast Breakfast Forum in January! It was a packed room and we had an in-depth dialogue on resource issues with members from both the Majority and Minority of both houses of the Legislature. Thank you to Sena- tors Cathy Giessel, James Kaufman and Bert Stedman, and Representatives Julie Coulombe, Zack Fields and Chuck Kopp for participating on our panel. Visit www.akrdc.org/breakfast-fo- rums for more information on upcom- ing events and a recap of speakers from our previous forums.
Earning the IOM designation represents a significant professional milestone and re- flects Jennifer’s commitment to excellence, continued learning, and strong leadership within Alaska’s resource community. “Jennifer’s dedication to RDC and to her own professional growth is evident in everything she does,” said Connor Hajdu- kovich, Executive Director of the Resource Development Council. “Completing the In-
stitute for Organization Management pro- gram is a significant achievement, and we are incredibly proud of her. The expertise she brings back to RDC strengthens our organization and ultimately benefits our members across Alaska.” The RDC board congratulates Jennifer on this outstanding achievement and celebrates the expertise and dedication she brings to our members, events and mission every day.
RDC Membership & Events Manager Jennifer Kuhlmann celebrates earning her IOM designation — a national recognition of excellence in nonprofit leadership and association management.
24
25
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 2026
VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 1 | MARCH 2026 ALASKA SALMON RUN DECLINES ARE A CRISIS COMMENTARY
Building world-class mines since 1962.
W HILE SOME ALASKA SALMON RUNS REMAIN STRONG, SHARP DECLINES IN OTHERS ARE CAUSING A CRISIS FOR NUMEROUS WESTERN ALASKA COMMUNITIES. Chum salmon run declines will be under the microscope during this year’s North Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting, and were discussed in a recent Alaska Beacon commentary. Open debate of how our region’s fisher- ies are impacting salmon populations is essential, but we need to take a closer look at the causes of abundance declines. The science is clear that environmen- tal changes, not fisheries, are the overrid- ing cause. Western Alaska chum salmon runs were healthy as recently as 2017, when almost 6 million chum returned to the Yukon River alone. By that year, the Bering Sea trawl fisheries that are now being vilified by out-of-state environ- mental activists had been operating at their current scale for 50 years. Their impacts were carefully monitored and managed, and salmon bycatch avoidance techniques were heralded as a global gold standard. Then two major heat- waves arrived. From 2014 to 2016 the Gulf of Alaska was hit by the longest and most intense marine heatwave on record. Then in 2019, a second massive warming event occurred in both the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. Scientists tell us that this warming shifted the zooplankton pop- ulation, depriving salmon of nutritious foods like copepods and forcing them to eat the marine equivalent of junk food. This robbed young chum of energy reserves and sharply reduced survival rates. It also led to steep abundance de- clines for coho salmon — a species that trawl fisheries never encounter.
MINE DEVELOPMENT SHAFT SINKING MASS EXCAVATION PRODUCTION MINING RAISEBORING MECHANIZED RAISE MINING UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION MECHANICAL EXCAVATION PRODUCTION DRILLING ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES SPECIALTY SERVICES
Shutterstock Photo
Any increase in chum salmon returns to Western Alaska from eliminating the pollock fishery would be undetectable. Every fishery has an environmen- tal impact. The Alaska pollock fleet is committed to continuous improve- ment, through things like collaborative research with state institutions and gear innovation, all to further reduce its very small impacts on Western Alaska chum salmon in response to the current crisis. As we do so, we are seeking to refine when and where we fish to specifically avoid Western Alaska chum salmon rather than Asian hatchery chum.
In the face of the crisis these envi- ronmental changes have caused, all of us need to respond. Yes, our region’s fisher- ies do catch Western Alaska salmon, and their management needs to be respon- sive. But here’s the truth: Alaska pollock trawl fishing accounts for only a tiny fraction of Western Alaska chum salmon fishing mortality. A recent scientific analysis concluded that state commer- cial salmon fisheries have accounted for 89.44% of Western Alaska chum salmon fishing mortality on average from 2011 to 2022. That is compared to an average of 8.81% by subsistence fisheries and an average of 1.75% by the Bering Sea Alaska pollock fishery in that same time.
AFRICA | AMERICAS | ASIA | AUSTRALIA | EUROPE
CONTINUED ON PAGE 28
redpathmining.com
26
21
www.AKRDC.org
ALASKA RESOURCE REVIEW MARCH 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. PDF to flipbook with ease