Alaska Policy Commentary  ·  June 3, 2026

"Strictly Private and Confidential": Glenfarne's Numbers Don't Add Up — And They've Just Bought Themselves Another Year to Avoid Saying So

Today Glenfarne presented cost figures to the Alaska Legislature stamped "Strictly Private and Confidential" — in a public hearing, on a document now posted on akleg.gov. The numbers don't survive contact with construction cost reality. And the timeline just slipped another year.

By Tom Lamb  ·  HB 381 · Special Session 2026

Today at the Alaska Senate Finance Committee, Glenfarne presented a slide deck with the words "STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL" printed on every page. It was a public hearing. The document is now posted on akleg.gov. The confidentiality stamp is theater — but what's inside the document is a more serious problem.

Glenfarne showed the Legislature their own internal cost estimates — labeled "Glenfarne Estimates 2026" — presented as if they answer the cost question the Legislature has been asking for months. The numbers don't survive contact with construction cost reality. And the timeline just slipped another year.

"The Legislature is being asked to permanently restructure Alaska's tax code based on Glenfarne's own self-prepared internal estimates."

What the Slide Actually Shows

Glenfarne's own 2026 cost estimate, presented today in public session:

Asset	Low ($MM)	High ($MM)
Pipeline (Phase I)	$13,200	$16,900
LNG Export Terminal (Phase II)	$23,600	$28,400
Gas Treatment Plant (Phase II)	$7,700	$9,200
Total	$44,500	$54,500

The low end — $44.5 billion — is essentially identical to the 2018 AGDC estimate of $46.2 billion. Eight years later. Through COVID. Through the worst construction cost inflation in a generation. Through supply chain disruptions that sent materials costs soaring across every major infrastructure project in North America.

Glenfarne is asking Alaska to believe that inflation did not happen.

What Construction Costs Actually Did Between 2018 and 2026

The Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index — the standard benchmark for major infrastructure — rose approximately 40–50% between 2018 and 2026. Steel prices, labor costs, and remote logistics in Alaska have all increased substantially. Every comparable mega-project built or estimated in this period came in dramatically higher than pre-COVID projections.

The Cost Reality Gap

2018 AGDC estimate: $46.2 billion

Glenfarne 2026 low estimate: $44.5 billion — somehow lower than 8 years ago

Glenfarne 2026 high estimate: $54.5 billion

Rapidan Energy Group independent estimate: Export phase alone up to $60 billion — total well above $70 billion

Independent analysts at Rapidan Energy Group put the export terminal phase alone at up to $60 billion. Glenfarne puts the same phase at $23.6–$28.4 billion. That is not a rounding difference. That is a $30+ billion gap between Glenfarne's self-prepared estimate and an independent analysis — on a single component of the project. Nobody in the Legislature today asked Glenfarne to reconcile that gap.

The Confidentiality Stamp on a Public Document

Every slide in today's deck is stamped "STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL." The deck was presented in an open public hearing of the Alaska Senate Finance Committee. It is now publicly available at akleg.gov for anyone to download.

This is not a minor irony. It tells you something important about how Glenfarne operates: the confidentiality posture is performative. It is designed to signal that information is proprietary even when it is being handed to a public legislative body in open session — creating the impression of restricted access while presenting self-prepared figures as a substitute for independent analysis.

"Glenfarne stamped 'confidential' on a document presented in a public hearing, now posted on akleg.gov. The confidentiality is theater. The numbers are the problem."

The Timeline Just Slipped — Again

Here is the FID timeline as Glenfarne has presented it:

Glenfarne's Sliding FID Timeline

March 2025: Glenfarne becomes lead developer. FID anticipated "in 2025."

May 2025: Final engineering and cost analysis commences. FID expected year-end 2025.

November 2025: Baker Hughes agreement signed. FID "anticipated soon after" December cost completion.

December 2025: FID milestone missed. No public cost estimate released.

January 2026: Duval says project is "progressing from planning to building." No FID.

June 2026: Glenfarne tells contractors to be ready for Q1 2027 mobilization. Cost evaluation extended into 2027. FID slipped at least one full year from original target.

The Legislature is being asked to pass a permanent tax restructuring bill — today, in a special session — for a project whose developer has just extended its own cost evaluation into 2027. A project that has missed every self-imposed deadline it has set since taking over in March 2025.

GaffneyCline, the independent advisory firm that testified before the House Finance Committee last week, noted there were "a number of unresolved features of the Phase 1 gasline project that would typically put the timeframe for FID much further out than the project developers have indicated." That testimony came before the 2027 extension was announced.

What the Legislature Should Have Asked Today

When Glenfarne presented slide 9 — the cost table — the questions that should have followed are straightforward:

Questions the Legislature Should Ask

1. These are labeled "Glenfarne Estimates 2026" — who prepared them and were they independently validated?

2. How does the low-end figure of $44.5 billion compare to the 2018 estimate of $46.2 billion, given 8 years of construction cost inflation?

3. Rapidan Energy Group estimates the export phase alone at up to $60 billion. Your figure for the same phase is $23.6–$28.4 billion. What explains the $30+ billion gap?

4. You have now extended cost evaluation into 2027. Why should the Legislature set a permanent tax rate today for a project whose costs you cannot finalize for another year?

5. Who specifically absorbs the $10 billion difference between your low and high estimates — and does Alaska's 25% AGDC equity stake expose the state to any of that risk?

The Bottom Line

Glenfarne stamped "confidential" on a public document, presented their own self-prepared cost figures instead of the independent engineering estimate, and has now extended their cost evaluation into 2027 — all while asking the Legislature to pass a permanent tax restructuring bill this week.

The project may well be worth pursuing. The energy security argument is real. But a company that withholds independent cost estimates, presents internally-prepared figures as a substitute, stamps public legislative documents "confidential," and cannot meet a single self-imposed deadline is not a company that has earned a permanent blank check from Alaska's tax code.

The Legislature should table HB 381 until the Worley estimate is released, independently reviewed, and reconciled with the Rapidan analysis. That is not opposition to Alaska LNG. That is basic due diligence — the same standard every comparable project in Louisiana and Texas was held to before a single dollar of tax revenue was committed.

Alaska deserves to know what it is signing before it signs it. Right now, it doesn't.

Tom Lamb  ·  June 3, 2026  ·  Alaska Policy Commentary