Notes on Alaska Energy & Public Policy

Thomas Lamb

Alaska LNG · AS 43.82 · Stranded Gas Development Act · Tax Certainty

The Road Not Taken

Alaska has a statute specifically designed for this moment — a structured, transparent pathway to negotiate tax certainty for a North Slope gas project. It has been on the books since 1998. Glenfarne bypassed it entirely. The road not taken has more protections for Alaska than the road Dunleavy chose.

Thomas Lamb  ·  May 2026

In July 2006, I wrote about a statute most Alaskans had never heard of — the Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act, codified at AS 43.82. I was writing about Frank Murkowski's attempt to use it to negotiate a secret tax deal with BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips. The legislature rejected that deal. Murkowski lost his primary. And Alaska moved on to AGIA, SB 138, and eventually to Glenfarne.

What nobody noticed in all of that transition is that AS 43.82 never went away. It was never repealed. It was never superseded. It sits in Alaska statute today — operative, available, and carrying more transparency and legislative oversight than anything the Dunleavy administration has proposed in the current special session.

The Stranded Gas Development Act was not the problem in 2006. The secret deal Murkowski made under it was the problem. The statute itself — its application process, its qualified project review, its cost evaluation requirements, its mandatory legislative ratification — was built precisely to prevent Alaska from giving away tax certainty without understanding what it was giving it away for.

Glenfarne bypassed it entirely. And in doing so, bypassed every protection it was designed to provide.

What AS 43.82 Actually Requires

The Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act was enacted in 1998 and amended several times since. Its purpose was specific: to create a formal, structured pathway for the state to negotiate tax certainty with the sponsor of a qualified North Slope gas project — including the ability to offer payment in lieu of one or more taxes — subject to rigorous review and legislative approval.

AS 43.82.100 — Qualified Project Standard

The commissioner may determine that a proposal is a qualified project only if it would produce at least 500 billion cubic feet of stranded gas within 20 years of commercial operations and is capable of making gas available to meet reasonably foreseeable in-state demand within economic proximity of the project. Crucially — this determination must be based on information available to the commissioner. Cost information is central to that determination.

AS 43.82.210 — Payment in Lieu of Taxes

If the commissioner approves an application and proposed project plan, the commissioner may develop proposed terms for periodic payment in lieu of one or more taxes — including oil and gas production taxes, property taxes, and income taxes — that would otherwise be imposed by the state or a municipality on the qualified sponsor as a consequence of participating in an approved qualified project.

AS 43.82.250 — Term Limits

The term of any contract developed under AS 43.82.020 may not exceed 35 years from the commencement of commercial operations of the approved qualified project.

Read those provisions together. AS 43.82 anticipated exactly the current situation — a major North Slope gas project seeking tax relief from the state and municipalities. It created a pathway for that relief. And it built in safeguards at every step: a formal application, a qualified project determination requiring cost information, proposed terms developed by the commissioner, and mandatory legislative ratification before any contract takes effect.

The Process Glenfarne Never Went Through

The Dunleavy administration did not file an application under AS 43.82. It did not seek a qualified project determination from the commissioner. It did not go through the structured cost review that a qualified project determination requires. It introduced a standalone property tax bill in the legislature — bypassing the entire framework the Stranded Gas Development Act created for exactly this purpose.

The AS 43.82 Process — Steps Glenfarne Never Took

1

Application filed with commissioner. Project sponsor submits formal application including project plan with cost and economic information sufficient for the commissioner to evaluate the project's viability and tax impact.

2

Qualified project determination. Commissioner evaluates whether the project meets the statutory standard — including production capacity and in-state supply obligations. Cost information is central to this determination. This step cannot be completed without verified project costs.

3

Tax terms proposed by commissioner. Commissioner develops proposed payment-in-lieu terms for legislative consideration — grounded in the cost and economic information from the application. The terms are derived from verified numbers, not negotiated in the abstract.

4

Municipal interests accommodated. The statute explicitly requires that any tax contract accommodate the interests of affected municipalities — the North Slope and Kenai Peninsula boroughs whose property tax revenues are at stake.

5

Legislative ratification. No tax certainty contract takes effect without legislative approval. The legislature votes on terms it has been able to evaluate — because the application process produced the information needed to evaluate them.

6

Reporting and audit requirements. AS 43.82.630 requires ongoing reports and audits after a contract is in place — ensuring the state can verify the project is performing as represented and the tax terms remain appropriate.

That process was never initiated. Instead the governor introduced a property tax bill, applied pressure through a special session, and asked the legislature to ratify terms derived from cost information nobody has been allowed to see.

The Irony That History Demands We Notice

In 2006, the legislature rejected Frank Murkowski's deal made under AS 43.82. The lesson Alaska drew was that the process needed more transparency and more legislative oversight — which is exactly what AGIA and SB 138 added. The Stranded Gas Development Act itself, with its application process and legislative ratification requirement, was not the problem. It was the secret negotiation that preceded the formal process that the legislature found unacceptable.

The legislature rejected Murkowski's deal because it was negotiated in secret. It did not reject AS 43.82. Twenty years later, Glenfarne bypassed AS 43.82 entirely — producing a result with less transparency than what the legislature rejected in 2006.

The current property tax bill asks the legislature to provide tax certainty — including payment in lieu of property taxes — without a formal application, without a qualified project determination, without commissioner-developed terms grounded in verified costs, and without the municipal accommodation requirement that AS 43.82 explicitly mandates.

The borough property tax dispute — which has consumed weeks of legislative debate and nearly killed the bill repeatedly — exists precisely because AS 43.82's municipal accommodation requirement was bypassed. That requirement was written into the statute after decades of experience with exactly this conflict. Glenfarne's route around AS 43.82 walked directly into the problem the statute was designed to prevent.

What the Producers Know

The North Slope producers — ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Hilcorp — negotiated under AS 43.82 with Murkowski in 2003 and 2004. They know this statute. They know what a properly structured tax certainty contract looks like and what process produces one that survives legislative scrutiny.

They also know what happens when that process is shortcut. They watched Murkowski's deal collapse. They watched the legislature reject it. They watched AGIA replace it with a more transparent framework. And they have watched that framework gradually erode — through SB 138, through the AGDC-Glenfarne confidentiality agreement, and now through a standalone property tax bill that bypasses AS 43.82 entirely.

Their precedent agreements are structured as safety nets — conditional on FID, conditional on tax certainty, conditional on every prior commitment being properly completed. A properly completed tax certainty commitment, in the producers' institutional memory, looks like AS 43.82. It has an application. It has verified costs. It has legislative ratification. It has municipal accommodation. It has ongoing reporting and audit rights.

What is currently before the special session does not look like that. Which is precisely why the producers signed precedent agreements rather than binding supply contracts.

A Direct Comparison

AS 43.82 Process vs. Current Dunleavy Approach

AS 43.82 — The Road Not Taken

Current Property Tax Bill — The Road Chosen

✓ Formal application with project plan and cost information

✗ No formal application. No cost information provided.

✓ Commissioner qualified project determination based on verified economics

✗ No qualified project determination. No economic review.

✓ Tax terms developed by commissioner from verified cost data

✗ Tax terms proposed by Glenfarne. Cost data withheld.

✓ Municipal interests explicitly accommodated in statute

✗ Borough dispute nearly collapsed the bill. No statutory accommodation.

✓ Legislative ratification of terms derived from verified information

✗ Legislature asked to ratify terms it cannot independently verify.

✓ Ongoing reporting and audit requirements under AS 43.82.630

✗ No equivalent ongoing transparency requirements proposed.

✓ 35-year maximum contract term

✗ 30-year supply agreements plus open-ended tax structure.

Every protection AS 43.82 built into the tax certainty process has been bypassed in the current approach. Every conflict that has consumed the special session — the borough dispute, the lack of cost information, the absence of independent economic review — was anticipated and addressed in the statute that was never used.

The Question Nobody Has Asked

Why didn't Glenfarne pursue the AS 43.82 pathway?

The answer the statute itself suggests is uncomfortable. AS 43.82 requires a formal application with cost and economic information sufficient for the commissioner to evaluate the project. That evaluation cannot be completed without verified project costs. And Glenfarne has acknowledged those verified costs won't exist until mid-2027.

A developer who cannot complete a qualified project determination under AS 43.82 because it lacks verified cost information cannot honestly seek tax certainty through any process that requires those costs to be known. The Dunleavy administration's decision to bypass AS 43.82 and introduce a standalone tax bill was not a choice between two equivalent pathways. It was a choice to avoid the pathway that would have required Glenfarne to open its books.

The Statute Is Still There

AS 43.82 has been on the books since 1998. It survived AGIA. It survived SB 138. It survived every iteration of this project's development. It is available today.

The legislature does not need to invent new transparency requirements for the Alaska LNG project. It does not need to negotiate novel municipal accommodation provisions. It does not need to construct ad hoc audit rights from scratch. Alaska already has a statute that does all of those things — specifically for this type of project, specifically for this type of tax concession.

The path to durable, legally defensible tax certainty for Alaska LNG runs through AS 43.82. It requires a formal application. It requires verified project costs. It requires commissioner review. It requires municipal accommodation. It requires legislative ratification of terms Alaska can actually evaluate.

That is not obstruction. That is the road Alaska built twenty years ago — after learning the hard way what happens when tax certainty is negotiated without it. The legislature should insist on taking it.

Related Posts in This Series

Alaska Has Been Here Before — How AGDC's secret deal with Glenfarne betrays the statutes written to prevent it Glenfarne's Shell Game — The contradictions that expose the attack on the legislature The Lever Nobody Is Using — The ROW conversion that must precede construction on state land Stranded Gas: The Safety Net the Producers Built — Why producer agreements are conditioned on fifty years of institutional memory AGIA: What's It All About and Who Really Wins — Written May 2007 The Stranded Gas Act: What's It All About — Written July 2006

---

Thomas Lamb Thomas Lamb has followed Alaska gas line policy since 2006. His July 2006 post analyzing AS 43.82 — written during the Murkowski negotiations — identified the same transparency gap that remains unresolved today. Sources for this post include AS 43.82 (Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act), AS 31.25 (AGDC enabling statute), SB 138 legislative record, Alaska Legislative Budget and Audit Committee gasline archive, reporting by the Alaska Beacon, Anchorage Daily News, and Dermot Cole's Reporting From Alaska.

Notes on Alaska Energy & Public Policy

Thomas Lamb

Alaska LNG · Stranded Gas · Producer Agreements · North Slope

Stranded Gas: The Safety Net the Producers Built

Glenfarne is presenting the producer supply agreements as proof of momentum. Read them more carefully. They are proof of fifty years of institutional memory about North Slope gas that has never moved south.

Thomas Lamb  ·  May 2026

North Slope gas has been stranded since commercial oil production began at Prudhoe Bay in 1977. For nearly fifty years, the associated gas produced alongside Alaska's oil has been reinjected into the reservoir, maintaining pressure for oil recovery, because there was no economic route to market. Billions of cubic feet of natural gas. Decades of potential revenue. Stranded.

Every major energy company operating on the North Slope knows this history intimately. They have lived it across multiple corporate generations, multiple price cycles, and multiple failed attempts to build a gas pipeline south. ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Hilcorp did not arrive at the negotiating table with Glenfarne as naive parties. They arrived as the most experienced holders of stranded gas assets on the planet.

Which is precisely why the gas sales precedent agreements they signed should be read not as commitment — but as the safety net sophisticated parties build when they have been here before.

Fifty Years of Failed Attempts

The producers' institutional memory is long and specific. Every prior attempt to monetize North Slope gas has failed — not from lack of interest, but from the same recurring problem: costs that couldn't be financed, tax structures that couldn't be agreed, and project economics that didn't survive contact with reality.

North Slope Gas — A History of Stranding

1977

Prudhoe Bay oil production begins. Associated gas reinjected — no pipeline to market.

1980s

Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System authorized by Congress. Project collapses under cost escalation before construction begins.

2001–2006

Governor Murkowski negotiates secret fiscal contract with producers for overland pipeline. Legislature rejects it. Project dies.

2007–2013

AGIA framework under Palin. TransCanada/ExxonMobil pursue overland pipeline. Open season fails to attract producer commitment. Project stalls.

2014–2016

Project pivots to LNG export with producers as partners under SB 138. LNG price collapse. Producers withdraw. AGDC left as sole developer.

2025

Glenfarne takes 75% of 8 Star Alaska. Producers sign gas sales precedent agreements. Gas remains unmonetized pending FID.

The producers have watched this sequence play out across five decades and multiple attempts. They understand better than anyone that a gas pipeline from the North Slope is not inevitable simply because it is desirable. They have seen desirable projects die at every stage of development — from concept to permitting to financing to construction.

They structured their agreements accordingly.

What a Precedent Agreement Actually Is

Glenfarne announced with considerable fanfare that all major North Slope producers have signed gas sales precedent agreements — ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Hilcorp, and Great Bear Pantheon. The announcement was framed as a milestone demonstrating that the project has critical mass and producer support.

A gas sales precedent agreement is not a supply contract. It is a framework document establishing the commercial terms — price formula, volumes, delivery method — that a future binding supply contract would follow. It creates no obligation to deliver gas. It creates no obligation to proceed with the project. It is conditional on every prior commitment in the development chain being successfully completed.

Producer Agreements — What They Are and Are Not

ConocoPhillips

Gas sales precedent agreement — 30-year framework Conditional on: FID · Tax certainty · Verified costs · ROW conversion · Financing secured

ExxonMobil Alaska

Gas sales precedent agreement Conditional on: FID · Tax certainty · Verified costs · ROW conversion · Financing secured

Hilcorp Alaska

Gas sales precedent agreement Conditional on: FID · Tax certainty · Verified costs · ROW conversion · Financing secured

Great Bear Pantheon

Gas sales precedent agreement — up to 500 MMscfd Conditional on: FID · Tax certainty · Verified costs · ROW conversion · Financing secured

Every condition in that chain depends on the one before it. And the chain breaks at the right-of-way conversion — because a defensible public interest finding cannot be made before verified project costs exist, and Glenfarne has acknowledged those costs will not exist until mid-2027.

If the ROW conversion cannot proceed, FID cannot proceed. If FID cannot proceed, the precedent agreements never convert to binding supply contracts. If binding contracts are never signed, the gas stays in the ground. Stranded. Again.

The Safety Net in Plain Sight

The producers did not sign precedent agreements despite knowing this history. They signed precedent agreements because of it.

A precedent agreement gives a producer everything it needs to maintain a position at the table — without betting its balance sheet on a project that has failed repeatedly. If the project succeeds and FID is reached, the precedent agreement converts to a binding supply contract and the producer monetizes decades of stranded gas. If the project fails — as it has failed before — the precedent agreement expires with no loss, no liability, and no obligation.

Signing a precedent agreement is not confidence in Glenfarne. It is fifty years of institutional memory about stranded North Slope gas, expressed in contractual language.

ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Hilcorp are publicly traded companies. They carry fiduciary duties to their shareholders. They do not make binding commitments to $60-plus billion projects without verified cost estimates. They have not made such a commitment here. They have preserved optionality while protecting their balance sheets — precisely what sophisticated energy companies do when facing a high-reward, high-uncertainty development in difficult terrain with a long history of failure.

What the ROW Scenario Means for the Producers

If the conditional right-of-way leases on state land cannot convert — because a defensible public interest finding requires verified costs that Glenfarne won't produce until mid-2027 — the producers face a familiar outcome.

The pipeline route through state land is broken. Without that route, there is no path south for North Slope gas. The precedent agreements — carefully structured to avoid binding commitment — expire without ever becoming binding contracts. The associated gas on the North Slope continues to be reinjected. The monetization that has eluded these companies for fifty years continues to elude them.

This is not a catastrophic outcome for the producers. They structured their exposure to survive exactly this scenario. Their North Slope oil production continues regardless. Their balance sheets are protected. Their shareholders are not exposed to a stranded pipeline investment.

But it is a significant outcome for Alaska. Because the gas stays stranded. The revenue stays unrealized. The Cook Inlet supply crisis continues unaddressed. And the window of geopolitical demand — Middle East disruption driving Asian buyers toward Pacific suppliers — closes while Alaska argues over a cost estimate nobody will release.

The Irony Glenfarne Cannot Escape

Glenfarne has presented the producer agreements as the project's strongest evidence of commercial viability. But those agreements are structured specifically to survive the project's failure. Their very design reflects the producers' assessment that failure remains a live possibility — one they have experienced before and prepared for again.

The producers are not obstructing this project. They are participating in it on terms that protect them if it fails — as it has failed before. That is not pessimism. That is the rational behavior of companies that have held stranded gas assets on the North Slope for fifty years and know exactly what stranded looks like.

Glenfarne holds the one thing that could break the stranding cycle — a verified cost estimate that would allow the ROW conversion to proceed on solid legal footing, the tax structure to be set on defensible arithmetic, and the FID to be made on real numbers. It commissioned that estimate. It received it. It will not release it.

Until it does, the producers' safety net remains exactly that — a net designed to catch them when the project falls. And North Slope gas remains what it has been since 1977.

Stranded.

What Fifty Years Teaches

The North Slope producers have been here before. They know that good geology, strong demand, and political support are necessary but not sufficient conditions for a gas pipeline to be built. They know that cost is the variable that has killed every prior attempt — not at the concept stage, but at the moment when real numbers replaced projections.

They signed precedent agreements because they want this project to succeed. They structured those agreements as a safety net because they have learned not to assume it will.

The legislature, the DNR commissioner, and the people of Alaska deserve the same protection the producers built for themselves — the right to see the real number before making commitments that cannot be undone.

Release the Worley estimate. Convert the ROW leases on verified information. Let the producers convert their safety nets into binding contracts. That is the sequence that actually builds a pipeline.

Related Posts in This Series

Alaska Has Been Here Before — How AGDC's secret deal with Glenfarne betrays the statutes written to prevent it Glenfarne's Shell Game — The contradictions that expose the attack on the legislature The Lever Nobody Is Using — The ROW conversion that must precede construction on state land AGIA: What's It All About and Who Really Wins — Written May 2007

---

Thomas Lamb Thomas Lamb has followed Alaska gas line policy since 2006. Sources for this post include AGDC project records, Glenfarne public statements, Alaska Beacon reporting, Anchorage Daily News, Reuters, and the public record of North Slope gas development history. Producer agreement details drawn from AGDC public disclosures and legislative hearing testimony.

Notes on Alaska Energy & Public Policy

Thomas Lamb

Alaska LNG · Right-of-Way · State Land Law · Public Interest

The Lever Nobody Is Using

While the legislature fights over the tax bill in special session, a quieter and more durable protection sits unused in Alaska land law. Construction cannot begin on state land until the state says so. The state hasn't said so yet. And Glenfarne just admitted it won't know what this project costs until mid-2027.

Thomas Lamb  ·  May 2026

Everyone is watching the special session. The governor vetoed the pension bill. Lawmakers are being called back to Juneau. The pressure is intense and the timeline is brutal. In all of that noise, a critical legal fact about this project has gone completely unnoticed in the public debate.

Before one shovel of dirt moves on Alaska state land, Glenfarne needs the state's permission. Not the legislature's permission on a tax bill. The DNR commissioner's permission to convert conditional right-of-way leases into full construction leases. That conversion has not happened. It requires a public interest finding. And Glenfarne just acknowledged it won't have verified project costs until mid-2027.

Those two facts together create a legal problem that no amount of political pressure resolves. A public interest finding made before verified costs exist is a finding made on incomplete information. It is administratively and legally vulnerable on its face. And nobody in the public debate has said so yet.

What the Law Actually Requires

The Alaska LNG pipeline crosses 807 miles of terrain. Approximately 230 miles cross federal land — mostly along the existing Trans-Alaska Pipeline corridor. The remainder crosses state and private land. For state land, right-of-way leases are required under AS 38.35.

In April 2021, the state issued two conditional right-of-way leases for the pipeline and associated facilities on state-owned land. The word "conditional" is doing critical legal work here.

AS 38.35.100(b) — Conditional ROW Leases

Conditional right-of-way leases were issued April 13, 2021 for the pipelines under AS 38.35.100(b). These leases require conversion under AS 38.35.100(a) before construction may begin. These leases are only applicable on state-owned lands.

AS 38.35.100(a) — Conversion Requirement

Before a conditional ROW lease converts to a full construction lease, the commissioner must consider the public interest and issue written findings substantiating the decision to allow the conversion. The commissioner must also approve any transfer of control of the lessee — defined as transfer of 30% or more of ownership interest.

The conversion has not happened. Construction cannot legally begin on state land without it. The commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources must make a written public interest finding before Glenfarne can break ground on any state-owned portion of the 807-mile route.

The Cost Problem That Makes the Finding Impossible

Here is what Glenfarne has told the world about its own project costs, in sequence:

Glenfarne's Shifting Cost Timeline

What Glenfarne Said

When

May 2025 Hired Worley to produce a final cost estimate "in sufficient detail to achieve FID." Work begins immediately. FID anticipated late 2025.

Implication Cost estimate would be complete and sufficient for a go/no-go decision by end of 2025.

Early 2026 Cost estimate exists but is confidential — cannot be shared because it could affect commercial negotiations.

Implication The number exists. Glenfarne has it. The legislature cannot see it.

May 2026 Developers acknowledge no overall cost estimate will be available before mid-2027. FID for pipeline targeted 2026, FID for export terminal early 2027.

Implication The legislature is being asked to pass tax certainty legislation — and the DNR commissioner is being asked to convert ROW leases — before verified costs exist.

Mid-2027. That is when Glenfarne says verified project costs will be available. Not late 2025 as originally promised. Not early 2026. Mid-2027 — a full eighteen months after Glenfarne took majority control of the project and nearly two years after Worley was hired to produce a final cost estimate for FID.

Why the ROW Conversion Cannot Proceed

The DNR commissioner's public interest finding is not a rubber stamp. It is a substantive administrative determination that construction proceeding on state land serves the public interest of Alaskans. That finding must be made in writing and is subject to legal challenge.

What would a defensible public interest finding require? At minimum:

Elements of a Defensible Public Interest Finding

1

Verified project costs. You cannot find that a project serves the public interest without knowing what it costs. Cost determines economic viability, tax revenue projections, energy price impacts, and risk to the state.

2

Verified financing structure. A project that cannot be financed does not serve the public interest regardless of its merits. Financing depends on verified costs.

3

Verified in-state gas pricing. The core public benefit claim — affordable gas for Alaskans — depends entirely on project economics. Those economics depend on verified costs.

4

Verified revenue to state and boroughs. The $26 billion revenue projection cited by the governor derives from cost assumptions. Without verified costs, that projection is arithmetic built on an unknown variable.

Every single element of a defensible public interest finding depends on verified project costs. Glenfarne says those costs won't be verified until mid-2027. A commissioner who signs a public interest finding before mid-2027 is signing a finding that cannot be substantiated by the information that exists at the time of signing.

A public interest finding made before verified costs exist is not a finding. It is a wish dressed up in administrative language. And wishes are not a legal basis for converting state land rights.

The Commitment Sequence Glenfarne Is Demanding

Step back and look at what Glenfarne is asking Alaska to commit to — and when — against the timeline of when costs will actually be known.

What Alaska Is Being Asked to Commit — Before Costs Are Known

1

Tax certainty legislation — now, special session May 2026. Generational restructuring of property tax based on a cost number that won't be verified until mid-2027.

2

ROW lease conversion on state land — before construction begins. A public interest finding certifying construction serves Alaskans — before the cost that determines whether it does is known.

3

Construction authorization — targeted late 2026. Breaking ground on an $11 billion Phase One pipeline before the $11 billion figure is verified.

4

Full project cost — mid-2027. The number that justifies every prior commitment. Available only after every prior commitment has been made.

The sequence is not accidental. Each commitment is extracted before the information that would allow Alaska to evaluate it arrives. By the time costs are verified in mid-2027, the tax structure will be locked in, the ROW leases will have converted, and construction will have begun. Alaska will have no leverage left at the only moment when it will finally know what it agreed to.

The Transfer That Also Requires Commissioner Approval

There is one more provision of AS 38.35.100 that deserves attention. The statute requires the commissioner to approve any transfer of 30% or more of ownership interest in the conditional ROW lessee.

When AGDC transferred 75% of 8 Star Alaska to Glenfarne in March 2025, that was a transfer of 75% of the entity holding the conditional ROW leases — well above the 30% threshold. The public record does not show a commissioner's written public interest finding approving that transfer. If that approval was not obtained, the transfer of the conditional leases to an entity majority-controlled by Glenfarne may not have been properly authorized under Alaska land law.

That is a question the legislature — or any interested Alaskan — has standing to ask the DNR commissioner to answer publicly.

The Lever

The legislature has spent this entire session fighting over the tax bill. That fight is real and important. But it is not the only fight available — and it may not be the most durable one.

The conditional ROW lease conversion is a separate, independent decision point that does not require a legislative majority. It requires one thing: a DNR commissioner willing to apply the public interest standard the statute requires, rather than treating the conversion as a formality to be completed on Glenfarne's schedule.

The commissioner cannot make a defensible written public interest finding before verified costs exist. Glenfarne has acknowledged those costs won't exist until mid-2027. Therefore the ROW conversion cannot defensibly proceed until mid-2027 at the earliest.

That is not obstruction. That is Alaska land law doing exactly what it was written to do — ensuring that before Alaska's public land is committed to a private developer's construction project, a substantive determination has been made that the commitment serves the public interest.

The Question for the Commissioner

Governor Dunleavy is calling the legislature back into special session to pass tax legislation this week. The same governor's DNR commissioner controls whether the conditional ROW leases on state land ever convert to construction leases.

The question is simple: On what verified information would the commissioner base a written finding that construction proceeding on state land serves the public interest of Alaskans — when Glenfarne has acknowledged that the verified cost of what is being built will not be known until mid-2027?

If the commissioner cannot answer that question, the conversion cannot proceed. And if the conversion cannot proceed, construction cannot begin on state land — regardless of what happens in special session.

The lever exists. It is grounded in statute. It has never been used. It should be.

Related Posts in This Series

Alaska Has Been Here Before — How AGDC's secret deal with Glenfarne betrays the statutes written to prevent it Glenfarne's Shell Game — The contradictions that expose the attack on the legislature AGIA: What's It All About and Who Really Wins — Written May 2007

---

Thomas Lamb Thomas Lamb has followed Alaska gas line policy since 2006. Sources for this post include AS 38.35.100 (Alaska Pipeline Right-of-Way Leasing Act), the Alaska Division of Oil and Gas pipeline records, reporting by the Alaska Beacon, Anchorage Daily News, Reuters, and Oil & Gas Journal, and public statements by Glenfarne, AGDC, and the Alaska Legislature.

Notes on Alaska Energy & Public Policy

Thomas Lamb

Alaska LNG · Glenfarne · Legislative Accountability

Glenfarne's Shell Game

Glenfarne attacked the legislature for not acting. But every failure to act traces directly to information Glenfarne controls and refuses to release. There is a word for that.

Thomas Lamb  ·  May 2026

Glenfarne and its allies have spent months attacking the Alaska legislature for failing to pass the tax legislation the project needs. The Alaska Landmine published the argument in its bluntest form, accusing lawmakers of launching "spiteful attacks" on the developer and calling the legislature itself the greatest risk to Alaska LNG. Governor Dunleavy compared the legislature to Nero fiddling while Rome burned. The message is clear: the legislature is the problem.

There is just one difficulty with that argument. Every specific thing the legislature has asked for — and not received — is information that Glenfarne controls. The legislature is not the obstacle. Glenfarne is the obstacle, and the contradictions in its own public statements prove it.

The Question That Ends the Argument

Before getting to the contradictions, consider the foundational irony that Glenfarne's attack on the legislature cannot survive:

Tax Certainty = f(Project Cost)

You cannot calculate a fair tax without knowing the cost being taxed

Glenfarne has spent this entire legislative session arguing that the current tax structure is unfair and will kill the project. They have told the House Resources Committee that their proposed tax structure will lower energy bills for Alaskan families. They have backed calculations showing $26 billion in state revenue over 30 years. They have warned that legislative changes will "indefinitely delay" gas delivery to Alaskans.

Every single one of those claims flows from a project cost figure. You cannot know if a tax is too high without knowing the cost base it is applied to. You cannot calculate revenue projections without knowing what the project actually costs to build and operate. You cannot tell Alaskan families their energy bills will fall without knowing the real economics of the project.

Glenfarne built its entire argument — every threat, every projection, every attack on the legislature — on a cost number it refuses to show anyone. They used the hidden number to make the case. Then hid the number from the people they were making the case to.

The legislature hasn't failed to act. It has refused to be stampeded into a generational tax commitment built on arithmetic no one is allowed to check.

Three Positions on One Cost Estimate

The most damning contradiction is not about politics. It is about a single document that Glenfarne commissioned, received, and will not release.

The Worley Cost Estimate — Three Contradictory Positions

May 2025

Glenfarne publicly announces it has hired Worley to produce a final cost estimate "in sufficient detail to achieve final investment decision for the pipeline." FID anticipated late 2025. Work begins immediately.

Early 2026

Glenfarne confirms to legislators that a cost estimate exists — but says it is confidential and cannot be shared because it could affect commercial negotiations.

May 2026

Glenfarne and project developers acknowledge no overall cost estimate will be available before mid-2027 — while simultaneously demanding the legislature pass tax certainty legislation in a special session this week.

Read those three positions again. In May 2025, the cost estimate was imminent and sufficient for FID. In early 2026, it existed but was confidential. In May 2026, it won't exist until mid-2027. These cannot all be true. At least two of these statements are false. The legislature is being called back into special session to act on a cost structure derived from a number that apparently simultaneously exists, doesn't exist, and won't exist for another year.

The Constructive Conversations That Weren't

Glenfarne CEO Brendan Duval told Alaska's News Source in January that conversations with lawmakers had been "extremely constructive" and he saw no frustration from delays. The company has repeatedly said it "meets regularly with legislators, consumers, unions, and industry groups."

Here is what lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were saying at the same time:

"We don't have enough information about the fiscal costs for this Glenfarne project. It's a little difficult for us to say this is the tax relief we should give." — Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel, March 2026

"I'd like to see more information shared. I'd like to see more of the economics of the project shared so that we can understand what the full potential is and what's on the table." — Congressman Nick Begich (R-Alaska), after urging the legislature not to "roadblock" the project, March 2026

"Glenfarne has thus far declined to provide new estimates for the cost of construction or its expected cost of gas when the pipeline is complete. That has made it impossible for them to determine whether the proposed tax break is too large, too small, or just right." — Alaska Beacon, May 19, 2026

These are not fringe critics. Giessel is a Republican. Begich is the governor's own consultant on the project. The Alaska Beacon is a straight news outlet. All of them — independently — say the same thing: Glenfarne has not provided the financial information the legislature needs to act responsibly.

Conversations that leave every participant saying they lack essential information are not constructive. They are theater.

The FID That Never Came

When Glenfarne took majority control of the project in early 2025, it announced that Phase One FID — the final investment decision that would commit financing and trigger construction — was anticipated by the end of 2025. Worley was hired specifically to produce the cost estimate needed for that FID. Construction was to begin by end of 2026. Gas was to reach Alaskans by 2029.

It is now May 2026. There is no FID. There is no construction start date. There is no public cost estimate. The legislature has been called into special session to pass tax legislation that Glenfarne says is essential for the project — for a project whose FID was supposed to have happened six months ago.

The legislature did not cause those missed milestones. The legislature was not even involved when Glenfarne missed its own self-imposed FID deadline. Yet the legislature is being blamed for the project's stalled momentum.

The Cost Overrun Promise

Glenfarne told the legislature that cost overruns would not be passed on to Alaskans. That assurance was offered as a reason to trust the project economics and pass the tax bill.

Independent analysts at Rapidan Energy Group looked at the same project and reached a different conclusion: given the scale and complexity of Phase One, no EPC contractor would undertake construction on a fixed-price basis because the financial risk is too great. The Coastal GasLink pipeline in British Columbia — a comparable project — ran from initial estimates of $5 billion to roughly $15 billion by completion.

So Glenfarne promised Alaskans protection from cost overruns on a project where independent experts say fixed-price contracting — the only mechanism that would actually protect Alaskans from overruns — is not feasible. That promise has no mechanism behind it. It is a statement, not a commitment.

And we only know this because independent analysts did the work Glenfarne won't allow the legislature to do for itself.

What the Attack Actually Reveals

Glenfarne's attack on the legislature is not an argument. It is a pressure tactic. The goal is to reframe the legislature's entirely reasonable demand for financial information as obstruction — and to do so loudly enough, and with enough political backing from the governor and the Trump administration, that lawmakers feel the political cost of asking questions exceeds the political cost of signing a blank check.

That tactic has a name in Alaska. It is what Frank Murkowski tried in 2003. Present a deal, apply pressure, call skeptics obstructionists, and hope the legislature folds before anyone does the math. The legislature didn't fold then. It shouldn't fold now.

The Only Question That Matters

Glenfarne knows its project costs. It commissioned the study. It received the results. It has used those results — without disclosing them — to calculate every claim it has made about tax fairness, energy bill savings, and state revenue projections.

The legislature is not asking for Glenfarne's trade secrets. It is asking for the number that every one of Glenfarne's public claims depends on. It is asking for the arithmetic behind the argument being used to justify a generational tax concession.

That is not obstruction. That is the legislature doing exactly what it was elected to do.

Release the Worley estimate. Then we can talk about tax certainty.

---

Thomas Lamb Thomas Lamb has followed Alaska gas line policy since 2006. His earlier analysis of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, written in May 2007, identified tax certainty as inseparable from known project costs — an argument that remains unresolved nearly two decades later. Sources for this post include reporting by the Alaska Beacon, Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's News Source, and public statements by Glenfarne, AGDC, and the Alaska Legislature.

Notes on Alaska Energy & Public Policy

Thomas Lamb

Alaska LNG · Public Accountability · Legislative Policy

Alaska Has Been Here Before

How AGDC's secret deal with Glenfarne betrays the very statutes written to prevent it — and why the legislature cannot act until that changes.

Thomas Lamb  ·  May 2026

There is a cost estimate sitting in a filing cabinet somewhere in Glenfarne's New York offices. It was produced by Worley, a global engineering firm, after a rigorous study completed at the end of 2025. It is the most accurate assessment ever made of what the Alaska LNG project will actually cost to build. The Alaska legislature is being asked to restructure the state's tax system for generations based on that number. And Glenfarne won't show it to them.

This situation did not arise by accident. It was created by a confidentiality agreement that the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation — a public body spending state money — signed with a private New York developer. And here is what makes that agreement not just bad policy, but a betrayal of statutory intent: the entire legal framework under which AGDC operates was written specifically to prevent exactly this kind of secrecy.

Alaska has been here before. The legislature remembers. The question is whether anyone will say so out loud.

The Lesson That Built the Statutes

In the early 2000s, Governor Frank Murkowski negotiated a secret fiscal contract with BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips for a $20 billion gas pipeline. The terms were developed behind closed doors. The legislature was presented with an agreement it had not shaped and could barely scrutinize. Critics said it was too generous to the producers. The public had no way to verify that independently.

The legislature rejected the contract. Murkowski was so damaged by the perception of secret dealing with oil companies that he was defeated in his own Republican primary — a stunning rebuke in a state where his name had defined Alaska politics for decades.

"Not just allowing Exxon, British Petroleum and ConocoPhillips to tell us how our resources will be developed." — Sarah Palin, campaigning against Murkowski's secret pipeline deal, 2006

That repudiation was the founding trauma of Alaska's modern gas line policy. It shaped every statute that followed. When Governor Palin came to office, she didn't just negotiate differently — she changed the legal architecture entirely. The Alaska Gasline Inducement Act of 2007 mandated open competitive bidding, required public notice and comment, and — critically — required legislative approval before any license could be issued. Transparency was not a preference. It was the law.

What SB 138 Built — and What It Didn't

By 2014, the project had evolved from an overland pipeline to a North Slope LNG export project. The AGIA framework, designed for a different project structure, was terminated. In its place, the legislature passed Senate Bill 138, which expanded AGDC's mandate to include the full LNG project with BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips as partners alongside the state.

SB 138 carried forward the core public accountability obligations of its predecessors. It required legislative consideration and approval of certain project contracts. It required public review. It directed AGDC to operate for the maximum benefit of the people of Alaska. These were not incidental provisions — they were the legislature's deliberate effort to preserve the transparency architecture AGIA had established, adapted for a new project structure.

SB 138 also introduced one new concept: "appropriate separation." The statute directed AGDC's board to establish appropriate separation within the corporation when simultaneously managing both the in-state natural gas pipeline and the LNG export project, due to confidential commercially sensitive information between those two competing workstreams.

AS 31.25.040(c) — Legislative Intent

"In order to maximize the efficient use of state resources, yet keep appropriate separation between the in-state natural gas pipeline and the AK LNG project due to confidential commercially sensitive information, the AGDC board of directors shall establish appropriate separation within the corporation."

Read that carefully. "Appropriate separation" was an internal firewall — between two AGDC projects competing for the same staff, resources, and commercially sensitive information. It was never intended as a mechanism to shield project information from the legislature. It was organizational hygiene within AGDC, not a license for secrecy toward the public body that funds and oversees it.

AGDC has since used this language to justify a confidentiality structure with Glenfarne that prevents legislators from seeing governance documents, cost estimates, and operating agreements. That is a fundamental misreading — or deliberate misapplication — of what the provision was written to do.

A Decade of Public Disclosure

Here is what makes AGDC's current secrecy indefensible on its own terms: for the entire history of this project under public stewardship, costs were publicly disclosed.

2015

The joint venture — BP Alaska, ExxonMobil Alaska, ConocoPhillips, and AGDC — publicly released a $44.2 billion cost estimate for the full project.

2016

The major producers withdrew due to collapsed LNG prices. AGDC became sole developer — a public entity with no private partners.

2020

AGDC publicly released an updated $38.7 billion cost estimate at an open board meeting, produced through a rigorous 14-month process with BP, ExxonMobil, and Fluor Corporation.

2025

Glenfarne takes 75% control under a confidential agreement. Worley completes an updated cost estimate. Glenfarne refuses to release it.

Notice what did not drive those earlier disclosures: securities law. BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips are all publicly traded companies, but the cost disclosures came through AGDC's open board process — not through SEC filings. And when AGDC was the sole developer with no publicly traded partners at all, it still disclosed the updated estimate at a public board meeting in 2020.

The disclosure was voluntary. It was institutional. It was grounded in AGDC's identity as a public corporation accountable to Alaskans. It happened every single time AGDC controlled this project — until the moment it handed majority control to a private developer and accepted confidentiality terms that reversed a decade of its own practice.

Year	Who Controlled Project	Cost Estimate	Public?
2015	BP, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, AGDC	$44.2 billion	Yes — publicly released
2020	AGDC (sole developer)	$38.7 billion	Yes — open board meeting
2025–2026	Glenfarne (75%), AGDC (25%)	Updated by Worley — withheld	No — confidential

That table tells the whole story. The legislature never voted to abandon the disclosure standard AGDC had maintained for a decade. That abandonment happened in a private agreement the legislature has never seen, signed by a state body that has no authority to waive its public accountability obligations unilaterally.

Who Is Glenfarne?

Glenfarne Group LLC is a privately held, privately funded New York investment platform. It is not publicly traded. It has no public shareholders. It files no financial disclosures with the SEC. Its reported annual revenue is approximately $6 million — for a company now controlling 75% of a project whose realistic cost, according to independent analysts, likely exceeds $60 to $70 billion.

When ExxonMobil and BP were partners in this project, their involvement in a $44 billion capital commitment was a material fact for their public shareholders. Analysts scrutinized it. Investor relations teams answered questions about it. That scrutiny created an independent accountability floor that no confidentiality agreement could eliminate.

Glenfarne has none of those pressures. It answers to no public shareholders. It faces no analyst scrutiny. It has no investor relations obligations. The only transparency obligations it faces are the ones AGDC was supposed to impose — and didn't.

The Circular Trap

Here is the cruel logic of the current situation. Glenfarne says the project cannot move forward without a major property tax concession from the legislature. The legislature says it cannot evaluate that concession without seeing accurate project costs. AGDC says it cannot share those costs because of its confidentiality agreement with Glenfarne. Glenfarne says it cannot release costs because it could affect commercial negotiations.

AGDC's own secrecy deal is therefore the bottleneck strangling the development AGDC was created to advance. The corporation that exists to commercialize North Slope gas for the maximum benefit of Alaskans has signed an agreement that prevents the legislature from acting in Alaskans' interests.

AGDC was created because the legislature learned it cannot protect the public interest when executive branch deals with private developers happen behind closed doors. AGDC entering a secret agreement with Glenfarne is precisely the conduct the legislature designed AGDC to prevent — not to replicate.

Senator Cathy Giessel has come closest to naming this clearly, repeatedly challenging the confidentiality structure and demanding that AGDC's statutory duty to deliver maximum benefit to Alaskans be honored. She is right. But the argument goes deeper than policy preference. It goes to the institutional DNA of AGDC itself.

The Estimates Were Already Wrong

One final point deserves emphasis. The publicly disclosed estimates — $44.2 billion in 2015, $38.7 billion in 2020 — were not reliably accurate. They have aged badly. Steel and pipeline material costs have surged 66% since 2015. Labor costs for heavy civil engineering construction have risen 43%. Independent analysts at Rapidan Energy Group estimate the full project could exceed $70 billion. The Coastal GasLink pipeline in British Columbia — a comparable project in difficult terrain — ballooned from initial estimates of $5 billion to roughly $15 billion by completion.

The disclosed numbers proved insufficient. The lesson from that history is not that disclosure should stop. It is that disclosure must be more rigorous, more current, and more independent — not less. Glenfarne's Worley estimate, completed late in 2025, is the most accurate number that has ever existed for this project. The legislature is being asked to make generational decisions without it.

What the Legislature Must Demand

No tax concession. No property tax restructuring. No generational commitment of public revenue. Not one dollar of legislative action — until Glenfarne releases the Worley cost estimate to the legislature and to the public.

This is not an anti-pipeline position. It is the position the legislature itself established in statute, built on the hard lesson of Frank Murkowski's rejected secret deal. The transparency framework AGIA created, that SB 138 preserved, that AGDC honored voluntarily for a decade — that framework exists precisely for this moment.

AGDC does not have the authority to waive it. Glenfarne does not have the right to override it. And the legislature should not proceed as though neither ever existed.

Alaska has been here before. It knows how this ends when the numbers stay secret.

---

Thomas Lamb Thomas Lamb writes on Alaska energy policy and public resource development. This analysis is based on publicly available legislative records, statutory text, AGDC board disclosures, and reporting by the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Public Media, Alaska Beacon, and Dermot Cole's Reporting From Alaska.