years ago. I call Senate resources committee to order
today is Monday, February 2nd, 2026 and the time is 3.30 p.m.
Please turn off your cell phones. Committee members present,
Senator Rousher, Senator Klayman,
Senator Kawasaki, senator Myers, vice chair,
Senator kawasaki and I'm Senator Giesle.
I expect Senator Dunbar along shortly. What did I say?
Yes, please correct the record that's Senator Wilkowski is the vice chair and
Senator Dunbar has joined us. We have a quorum to conduct business
Thank you, Heather and thank you Jude who are helping us out keeping the minutes and correcting my mistakes and helping
us with the audio
So today our presentation
continues on the gas line subject today.
We're going to hear from the producers on The North Slope
And so we have three individuals who are going to speak to us.
I'm going start today with a representative from ExxonMobil.
Her name is Kay Zengrabie.
I am guessing.
I know she is upstream commercial and business development with Exxon Mobil
and the lead commercial negotiator for gas sales with Glenfarn.
welcome, and if you would help me with the pronunciation of your name.
Thank you.
Thank You Chair Geisel and members of the Senate Resources Committee.
For the record, my name is Kay Zengrave.
As Chair Giesel mentioned, I work in upstream commercial and business development for Exxon
mobile.
And I am the lead for the North Slope Natural Gas Commercial Negotiations.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this afternoon.
And Chair Giesel, in your invitation to appear today,
you indicated your desire for ExxonMobil to place on record,
our answer to the question,
is Exxon Mobil willing to sell gas from the North Slope?
And the answer is yes.
Exxonmobile has and will continue to make its gas available to any project
under bilateral, mutually agreed.
commercially reasonable terms.
In fact, over the years ExxonMobil has entered into a gas sales agreement with Fairbanks
Natural Gas, a Gas sale precedent agreement, with ADDC,
a GAS sale president agreement
with the KILAC project, and currently we sell North Slope Gas to other Northslope developers.
And as announced last week, Exxon Mobil and Glenfarn have agreed to a
While we have a confidentiality agreement, cannot comment on specific gas sale terms,
we can confirm that the precedent agreement addresses both gas price and volumes.
So in closing, ExxonMobil is working to help make the Alaska LNG project successful.
And we're pleased to have completed this gas sale precedent agreement for phase one.
We are committed to work with Glenfarn to finalize a gas sales agreement later this
year and begin negotiating the additional agreements for Phase 2.
So ExxonMobil looks forward to the progress of the Alaska LNG project.
And if completed, we believe both the state of Alaska and Exxon Mobil will benefit.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ms. Zingreib, I know that you probably can't answer a lot of questions,
but there could be some from the committee that might be able to answer, so let me see.
Committee members, any questions?
Just go quick.
Okay, Senator Myers.
Thank You Madam Chair.
As somebody not as familiar with the business side of gas sales.
I'm sorry, the term you you use to the agreement that you have come to so far,
I already forgetting what that was, but if I am understanding correctly that's
basically we've entered in an agreement to work on it.
It's not finalized yet, you're still working on the details of the price and the volumes and so on,
but you've effectively agreed to working is that correct?
We called the agreement a gas sale precedent agreement and through that we have agreed to the price and volume.
Oh, okay. Thank you.
Senator Kosaki.
Thank You. Thanks for being here today.
Can you tell me under that precedent or was the precedent,
agreement, one of the requirements under the 2012.
And Senator Kawasaki through the chair,
I am not able to answer that question.
I do not know.
Follow up?
Well, I guess if she's not sure if it was,
I don't know whether it's part of the agreement
or if something that Exxon had pledged to do.
And I think we're not today able
to know the terms at this point.
Is that correct?
The terms meaning the volumes.
You are correct senator Kawasaki through the chair
Because we have a confidentiality
Agreement in place with Glenfarn. I am not at liberty to share the specific volumes that we agreed to
Okay, thank you. Thank you further questions, senator clayman
You'd describe thank You very much madam chair
You described it as a gas sale precedent agreement and before you talked about the Glen Farn agreement you identified
three or four other agreements that Exxon has entered into historically were those all gas sale precedent agreements
Was that senator Klayman? Yes, it was senator klaymen. Did I say that correctly through the chair?
Those prior agreements some of them were gas sales
precedent agreement and some were gassed sale full gas-sale agreements
So a mix historically
Just one follow-up. Thank you Madam Chair, and then the only other query if I were sitting in either Exxon's boardroom or
Glen Farm's senior management board room in both instances both sides of that negotiation would be able to know price and volume
Senator Clayman through the chair. Yes, those sides know the price. And the volume through that agreement.
Thank You
Other questions, Senator Wieckowski.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.
Which, where does Exxon expect to get their gas from?
Is it Point Thompson or another location?
Senator Wakowski, through the chair.
The specific location of that
is also part of the agreement that's confidential.
I will say it probably will become obvious through time.
Will Exxon be required to develop new infrastructure to get this gas to market?
Senator Wieckowski through the chair.
The answer to that for phase one is no, small capital project to tie in to the Glenfarn
Additional development is needed within that field to enable this gas sale for phase one
follow-up senator will koski
will the
Gas that is being produced by exon impact its reservoir in other ways to the point where it could impact
Production of oil or condensate
senator with kasi through the chair so
I'm not the reservoir engineer, I am the commercial negotiator, so I could not answer that specifically.
Follow-up, Senator Wilkowski.
Is the gas sale precedent agreement a binding agreement?
Senator Wieckowski through the chair, there are terms in the Gas Sale precedent
agreement that are binding if certain condition precedents are met.
Follow-up.
What are those condition precedents?
And Senator Wieckowski threw the chair
because the specific condition precedence
are part of the agreement.
We're bound by our confidentiality with Glenn Farm.
But I can attest that they are generally industry standard
condition presidants that are often
used in agreements like this.
Follow up.
was part of the contingent of producers that had explored a project that would
build the gas pipeline. I believe it was Exxon, BP, and Conoco. And it
was deemed two years after the announcement to be uneconomic at a $45 to
$65 billion price tag.
16 have generally for building pipelines and producing gas have gone up have
increased stayed the same or decreased in general and senator will a cow ski
through the chair yes it's true ExxonMobil and BP together developed and
designed the original AKA LNG project there's a lot of design files
because there's been inflation since then.
We could assume that prices would be higher,
but I'm not on the development team
who might be looking at that.
I've not part of the Glenfarn team who's assessing that
Follow up.
And I was just curious if it was on economic in 2016
at 45 to $65 billion and I think it's fair to say
prices have increased with inflation.
probably fairly significantly, what are your thoughts on why it might be suddenly
viable this year? Senator Willakowski through the chair, there could be a lot of factors
in the marketplace. The LNG market is different today than it was then and I think any company
developing an L&G project at any given time would look at the anticipated global market
Today different from them. I'm not in the lng team
So I couldn't tell you specifically how different it is in coming years versus the 2014 2015 time frame
Follow-up and that was my next question was how I am curious. How does the LNG market compare today versus?
10 years ago. Do you have any ideas it what the prices would have been then and what they are projected
Senator will a cow ski through the chair
So at that time in 2014, I was not in our LNG business.
I'm not today either.
So I would not be able to compare those numbers
since I am the commercial negotiator for this project.
And without divulging what the price
is, curious if the prices based on a market?
Is it based on a fixed cost of service rate to ensure low cost energy for Alaskans, or is it tied to the global LNG demand?
Senator Wielikowski through the chair.
In this phase, phase one, there's no LNG market per se that may be coming in the future.
from our cost of supply
to what the market could bear at that time.
So we look at all.
Follow up.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is
the concern we've heard is the
concern from the rate payers, the consumers,
and how this might impact their energy prices
in South Central, Fairbanks, all of them down the realm.
And is it...
I guess that's an important question, at least for me, and I think probably everyone's sitting
up here in the state.
Is it a fixed price or is it going to fluctuate based on LNG demand?
In other words, if LNG price is spiked to $30, an MCF, does that mean, or an MMBTU?
Does that means their local consumers will see their prices spike even though the gas
is only in phase one is being shipped in state?
Or is more of a fix price based your development costs?
Senator Willakowski through the chair, that is a great question because it is specifically
part of the terms of agreement and because of our confidentiality agreement, I'm not
able to specify whether it's fixed price or a variable price.
Follow-up.
If global price is spiked, does your contract prioritize the 30-year supply letter of intent
Alaskans possibly be outbid by foreign buyers.
And Senator Willakowski through the chair again, I'm just I am not able to comment on the price specifically.
I'll defer to others.
Senator Johnson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank You Mrs. Engrave for being here.
So companies like ExxonMobil and the other large producers, they make
long-term decisions and long term investments and they also make those
investments based on probabilities right whether you're drilling well or you
choosing to go into Venezuela whatever it is you are playing the odds you have
to and so my question is how likely does Exxon think this project is to
go forward and more to the point are you making investment decisions now
you know, shifting capital for perhaps to prepare for an AKLNG project.
Senator Balcon through the chair. Thank you for that question.
I don't sit in our development planning company who does assess that very closely.
As the commercial negotiator, I'm not the best person to answer that.
Well, I hope Madam Chair, we can have someone from the producers here eventually that could answer that question because that really is the
Policy question before us as a committee. We we
Can't get inside those those contracts that you're negotiating and perhaps we shouldn't
But we all have to have a shared understanding about whether or not this project is actually going to go forward
and
You know this this the fact that you've negotiated this contract might be an indicator that that it is more likely to go forward
Then again, it might. Be something that ExxonMobil does in a lot of cases
Even when they think that. It's a long shot
I don't know if there's question there, but I that is really that
Is really what we're trying to understand here is is this project actually gonna go for it or not?
Thank you madam chair
Thank you, Senator Dunbar.
Senator Kawasaki, I have a question.
Yes, thank you.
Thanks again for being here.
We had a little bit of discussion about
whether there would be a fixed rate.
And I'm wondering if in the calculation that you make
as Exxon, if you have sort of,
since you're not allowed to tell us
whether what that rate is,
could go be up or down or at a certain range
when you're developing your cost analysis.
Senator Kawasaki through the chair.
Our development planning team did do an extensive analysis
and we were able to conclude a price in the contract.
So because of that analysis we
And then follow-up.
Follow-ups, Senator Kawasaki.
So whether it's a fixture variable to say consumers
in the Fairbanks area is sort of an important feature
in a whole LNG, or the whole pipeline itself,
but definitely the one that stops in Fairbanks.
And so the question is, do you think
that the rates are going to be dependent on
regulatory Commission of Alaska rates or whether they'll be FERC regulated and
that's just on the in-state pipeline and and facilities associated facilities
and I don't know if they the facilities are appropriated toward based on a
portion of it. And Senator Kawasaki through the chair I'm familiar with
But I do not know the methodologies that they use to determine their view on the price I
Only know what we negotiated with Glenfarn
Thank you any other questions
Okay, yes, Senator will koski is the sales agreement that you have or their gas sale precedent agreement
Is it for Exxon to sell gas to Glen Farn or is it Forex on to cell gas? To another buyer?
Senator Willakowski through the chair,
the agreement that ExxonMobil wrote is with eight star,
which has held 75 percent by Glenfarn,
25 percent of by AGDC.
Those are the two parties to that agreement.
Senator Wielakowsky, I'm going to
interject clarifying piece for the committee
discovered, you know, on Friday we had at the end of the meeting, the question of who is eight
star? We don't even know who's on it, etc. And 15 minutes later, of course, we got an answer who
is on eight star, I sent it to each of your offices, but for the public, eight-star has four
of Glenfarn. Adam Prestige is the executive vice president of
GlenFarn, so that's two of the four members. Frank Richards is on eight-star,
he is with AGDC, and the fourth person is Janet Weis. She is there as a public
member to represent the Alaska public. By chance she is also on the AG DC
So that's who eight star is and
they are
the people that
that as
as
Zen
I'm sorry. I am going to get your name
Zen grape just said
They're the People that actually are over this whole project
Glenfarn is the private entity that's developing this with whom the gas owners, the holders
of the leases that are developing our gas, we own the Gas, let's clarify that, they
are dealing with GlenFarn.
Further questions, Senator Wilkowski?
Yeah, thank you on that point looking at the Glenfarn press release that they put out on January 23rd
They said
They say Glen Farn has executed a gas sales press agreement with Exxon Mobil is is that an error?
Should that say eight star has execute an agreement or do you?
Is Glen Farne an eight-star the same company to you when you're negotiating with eight stars it is?
as if you're negotiating with Glenfarn.
What is your, maybe you can explain that to us.
Sure, Senator Wiliekowski through the chair.
Yes, actually at the negotiating table,
there are members from both.
So I worked directly with Glenfern
and an AGDC member was present
in those negotiations as well.
So the agreement is written with a start.
It's signed by one of the executive vice presidents from
Glenn Farn, who has the authority to sign the agreement on
behalf of eight-star.
Follow-up.
And then one
of things that we're trying to figure out is the cost because
there's concern about cost overruns and having them essentially
all be picked up by consumers, the ratepayers.
tell us what the price is, but I think in cooking that they're currently paying anywhere from 8 to 13 dollars in MCF.
I mean, is this, it is the all in price to the consumer expected with this deal to be competitive with current prices or
significantly raise gas prices in South Central?
Senator Willakowski through the chair.
I'm not able to answer that question in detail. I only know pieces of the puzzle
Even our development planning division because we're ExxonMobil. We can't see all of their costs
Glenfarn has not revealed to us their anticipated costs
Follow up other questions
It's senator kosaki you had
brought up the question of FERC versus RCA and we are going to have R CA before the Committee
on Wednesday. It is my understanding that the FARC oversees and permits the building of the
infrastructure, that is the pipeline, but RTA will regulate the price just as they regulate
We'll certainly ask R.C. more detail on that on Wednesday just to confirm that.
Seeing no further questions, Ms. Zingreib, thank you for being with us today.
I appreciate you fielding these questions and I
appreciate telling us what you can, so thank
you very much for coming here.
Second up today is Hill Corp.
It is represented today by Denali Kemple.
She's the Vice President of HillCorp Alaska and she is online.
So welcome Ms. Kemple.
Hello and good afternoon. I am online. There I go. Perfect. A good
afternoon Chair Giesle, Vice Chair Wilakowski, and members of the Senate
Resources Committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today
to share whole Corp. Alaska's perspective on providing gas sales to the Alaska LNG
project that's currently being advanced by Glenfarn in partnership with the
For the record, my name is Denali Kemple, very proud to be born and raised in Alaska,
and I am the Vice President for Hill Corp. Alaska. As Exxon mentioned previously,
much of the information surrounding these negotiations remains confidential and is ongoing.
We do appreciate the opportunity to provide some insight today into the discussions
This testimony is intended to comply with that confidentiality agreement, and so maybe
more limited in scope, especially as ongoing commercial limitations exist at this time.
I understand there may be various questions related to AKLNG gas line specifics and these
questions around permitting commercial structures and project timelines really are more properly
But with that context, we do appreciate the opportunity to be here today and talk about
the role that North Slope Gas can play in Alaska's long-term energy security.
So Hill Corp shares the excitement that a lot of Alaskans have regarding the ongoing
project and the Alaska LNG pipeline, bringing North slope gas to the project in a partnership
um is is an important thing and since the announcement uh with uh Glenfarn in the state
not the announcements last week but the original announcement Hillcorp has been in
pretty steady discussions with GlenFarn regarding potential gas supply contracts.
As many of you may be aware,
Hillcorp has focused its North Slope commercial efforts
on the fields where it operates
and fields in which there are,
we fully control the gas resource
or have the highest quality gas.
And we've done this very specifically
to ensure that the focus remains
on their lowest cost of supply to the project,
particularly in the context of phase one gas sale.
So, these discussions at the Hillcorp level around potential gas supply have really focused
on Norstar, Desacott, and Point Thompson.
So consistent with those efforts, HillCorp recently entered into a Phase 1 gas sales
precedent agreement with Glenfarn.
This executed gas, gas-sales precedent, agreement is for gas with the NorStar unit.
We continued to work with Glenfarn on a similar agreement for Pointe Thompson, yes.
Hillcore, Velasquez, SVP, Luci, publicly shared when we signed the Glass sales precedent agreement.
And he noted that we're pleased to partner with Glenn Farn
entering into the phase one gas sales precedent agreement is an important step towards moving
the gas to market and to reliable energy to in-state customers and helping address the decline in
the cook in the assets. We're really proud to serve as an anchor gas supplier committing early
Market predictability, supported by stable, consistent regulatory fiscal environment,
remains important to all of Health Corp's projects.
So, the Health Corps really views this agreement as an important early step in phase one of
the project.
We remain open to future gas supply volumes at commercially reasonable prices as...
project phasing, commercial structures, and investment decisions continue to evolve.
We also, though, remain committed to cook inlet and developing our lease hold there
to provide reliable steady gas for South Central Alaska.
Cook and Lit remains a really important component of Alaska's energy system and will continue to
invest there while also exploring opportunities to develop the North Slope gas. Appreciate the
committee's continued engagement on Alaska energy future. We look forward to working collaboratively
with policymakers, the state of alaska, and the project partners including Glenfarn
market-based and beneficial for Alaskans over the long term. That concludes my testimony. Thank you.
Thank You, Ms. Kemple. Committee members, questions.
Senator Wilkowski.
Thankyou. How's the AOGCC approved the withdrawal of gas from the reservoirs that you anticipate using for this gas?
Senator Wilakowski through the chair, the AOGCC does have a conservation order which is still current and and still stands I believe that the 2015 order remains still in effect today.
Follow up.
I don't.
And you said was it Endicott?
Was the main one?
North Star.
And are there other working entities at North Star that would require you to get approval
from them to withdraw gas?
Hill Corp is the entity for North-Star Gas.
Okay.
Okay, so I know I'd like Prudo, my understanding of the working agreement there is that it's
Is that how it works like Prudoh?
Yeah, Senator Welskowski through the chair. That is correct at Prude
We we have other working interest owners in Conoco and Exxon mobile and we are subject to a joint operating agreement there
Okay, so follow up. So none of the fields that you're seeking reservoir withdrawal
Gas withdrawal have have
other Working interest groups that
would
require their consent
Senator Wolkowski through the chair
For phase one Hill Corp is assigned the gas sales precedent agreement for nor star where we are the the only operator there
As it respects to Point Thompson, we do share Point Thomson with ExxonMobil and we have not
signed a gas sales precedent agreement on Point Johnson, but we are working to do so.
Pointe Thompson does have some nice characteristics on gas, so that's why we
you just referred to my question, what my
question was. Phase one is the pipeline.
My understanding is that phase two is
the treatment facility and considered
phase three is The Export Facility, the
three pieces of this complete project.
So for phase one, North Star gas has CO2
in it. That means it'll have to be
treated on the North Slope which of
Part of the faith part of a second piece of The infrastructure for this can you explain where that fits in?
Certainly
Thank you for the question. Phase one is really looking at in-state usage, but as
respects to your question about CO2 treatment as it relates to North Star, Hill Corp Alaska
is selling gas to Glenfarn at the lease. And so what happens from the gas in terms of
treatment and facilities and the like is, really, a question we're properly directed
Very good. I understand that very good
So it will be up to Glenfarn to determine whether they need to create or build a gas treatment plant on the North Slope
To transport the north star gas
Thank you
further questions from committee members, Senator Wilakowski
Yeah, and I know you can't I knew you're bound by your confidentiality provisions, but
And I'll tell you why I'm not gonna ask the question cuz Hill Corp controls
90% of Lisa's in Cook Inlet and so I'm curious what percentage of the gas Hill
Corp is committing to this project is it and I am concerned for monopoly
reasons because you know we've got to protect our consumers and up and down
the rail belt and are there any FCC concerns that you're aware of FTC
That you've explored or that you're concerned about through your gas sales and what percentage of the gas is Hill Corp providing to this project?
Senator Welskowski through the chair
Really essentially that's a volume question and we are not able to discuss that at this time price and volumes are subject to the confidentiality agreement
Further questions
Yes, Senator Dunbar
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So going off of Senator Wilakowski's question,
although I understand you can't speak about volumes,
but let's assume that the Alaska LNG gets built
and you are providing the maximum volume
that's allowed in the contract.
Do you anticipate reducing your investments in Cook Inlet?
And if so, does it drop to zero?
I mean, is that sort of Hill Corp's anticipated
that they will stop producing significant gas in the inlet?
Senator Dunbar, through the chair,
thank you for the question.
You know, Hill Corporation is very committed
to the Cook Inlet, you know drilling over 20 wells
in last several years, including this year.
So Hill Corps continues to invest in The Cook in Let.
I understand that, Ms. Kemple, and of course we are hoping that they continue to do that
in the short to medium term.
But if AKLNG comes online, then do you anticipate winding down your business in late?
Hillcorp, Alaska remain very committed to the Cook and Land.
Thank you, thank you Madam Chair.
Thank You.
Senator Wilakowski.
Yeah, ThankYou.
And I know last year I believe HillCorp testified that they would provide a jackup rig to Hexfury.
And my understanding is that there have since placed some limitations on the use of that jack up rig.
Can you talk about that?
Senator Wolkowski through the chair really here today to talk about the gas
sales from the North Slope but of course happy to follow up on that outside of
the hearing. So you'll get us follow-up Senator
Wilckowski. You'll provide us information on
that because we do have a gas crisis right now in Cook Inland and I feel
pretty comfortable in saying that Hill Corp said publicly they would provide
I don't know if it's true or not that you've changed the term since that hearing is is that accurate?
Senator Wilkowski through the chair again, you know here to talk about the gas line and gas from Northside
But we do have a contract with
Xfury for this year for XFury to use the jackup rig
So, Ms. Campbell, if you could supply a clarification on that on Senator Wilakowski's
question, send it to my office, I'll distribute it
to the rest of the committee, and it will be posted for the public on our website for
Senate resources.
Further questions, Senator Wieckowski?
No.
All right.
Looks like no additional questions.
Thank you very much, Miss Campbell for joining
us today.
Alright, so that takes us to our third presenter today, and that is Caroline Scholz.
She is the Government Affairs Director with Conical Phillips,
and she's here in person.
Welcome Ms. Scholtz!
Thank you, Chair Giesel and members of the Senate Resources Committee. Thank You for having me here today.
I have a letter written to the committee that was authored by
Barry Romburg. He's the vice president of commercial and midstream for Conoco Phillips, Alaska.
And with the permission of The Chair, I would like to read that letter to The Committee? That would be great, Mrs. Schult.
Thank, you.
So, thank you for your inquiry about Conaco Phillips involvement in the commercialization of North Slope gas.
ConocoPhillips primary focus in Alaska is growing production from the North Slope through its
exploration and production activities. While we have no plans to directly invest in the
Alaska LNG project or the project, we believe that other companies in
the midstream and LNG markets are well-suited to deliver the
project in an efficient manner and we will continue to support in our role as a
We collaborate in the project through our historic work with AGDC and now Glenn Farne
and have been in commercial discussions with them on a gas sales agreement since December 2025.
We understand that AG DC split the
project into two phases in 2024. Phase one will include an 800 mile 42 inch gas pipeline from the
Phase 2 will involve a 20 MTPA or million tons per annum LNG plant in Nagiski and a CO2 sequestration plant on the North Slope.
We are currently in active, constructive negotiations with Glenfarn on gas sales agreements for both phase 1 and phase 2 of the project.
We understand that priority gas for phase one will be sourced from areas east of Prudhoe Bay unit, where Conoco Phillips has no ownership interest.
Priority gas for Phase 1 will be primarily sourced from fields with low CO2 content,
compared to 12% of Prudhoe Bay, which has the highest CO 2 content gas on the North Slope.
Sourcing lower CO-2 gas will mean significantly lower Co2 removal costs,
so it makes sense that non-prudoe gas is the higher priority for phase 1.
Conoco Phillips is a 36.5% owner of the Prudhoe Bay unit and is participating in negotiations
with Glenfarn for major gas sales for Phase 2.
There are substantial and well-understood volumes of gas at Prudeau Bay, sufficient
to supply the 20 MTPA volumes for LNG, premised for phase 2 for decades into the future.
Conaco Phillips will be involved in any major
Conoco Phillips believes LNG has an important role to play in providing energy on a global
scale, both in terms of energy security and meeting global demand.
And the project is a significant development that could provide a concrete path forward
for commercializing the abundant natural gas on Alaska's North Slope.
The significant gas resources on the North slope have been the focus of commercialization
efforts for many years.
Alaska is the closest U.S. shipping point to energy markets in the Indo-Pacific and
previously was a reliable LNG export site for L&G shipped to Japan for over 50
years. Please reach out if you or the committee have additional questions and
that letter was signed by Barry Romburg vice president of Conical
Phillips Alaska commercial in midstream. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Scholtz?
So reading between the lines, it looks like Conoco is not investing because of the CO2 content,
their fields. Is that fair to say? Senator Wilakowski, I am happy to respond to that question and
writing after this hearing. Follow-up, Senator Wielakowsky. So I'm just looking at the letter
The other party gaster phase won't will be primarily sourced from fields with low CO2 content.
And the other fields that are managed by Conoco are Alpine and Caparra, I believe,
and the Willa project. Do you know what the CO-2 rates, and correct me if I'm wrong on those,
but are there other field that have lower CO 2 rates that Conoco is the working interest group,
what interest party on?
Through the chair to Senator Wilakowski, it is correct that Conoco Phillips is the operator for the Caparra and Alpine fields and the developer of the Willa project.
I cannot speak to the CO2 content at those fields.
I do not know those off the top of my head, but we can provide that to The Committee.
Further questions, Senator, Wilokowski?
As not what are we to take from that?
Through the chair to Senator Wilakowski,
Conoco Phillips is involved in negotiations with Glenfarn on gas sales for both phase one and phase two of this project
Further questions from committee members
Senator Kawasaki. Yeah, more of a technical question if you can answer this. That's fine. Can gas with the low CO2 be mixed with a gas
with higher level of CO 2
To basically still allow it to be processed or sent through a pipeline without the gas treatment phase
Through the chair to Senator kawasaki
Yes, my rudimentary understanding of mixing gases
Is that if you mix a higher CO2 and a lower CO 2 you end up with a middle CO to content?
Senator Wilakowski question is is Conoco
taking any action to build to
sequester or remove the carbon at the alpine or caparic or willow fields
Through the chair to senator Wilikowski
Conoco-philipse is not engaged in any CO2 removal of gas at any of the fields that we are currently operating.
Follow-up, Senator Wilakowski.
How long of a process is that?
If Conaco were to say, okay, we want to start sequestering or
building a gas treatment plant to pull out the carbonate, any one of its fields,
are we talking six months, a year, five years, how long have a processes that.
off the top of my head, but I'm happy to respond to the committee with that information.
Senator Wilakowski, I want to inject something here, upon here with sequestration.
DNR sent out their annual report today on gas sequestrations and they're still writing the
regulations for it. So that may be the answer to that question related to CO2 sequestrations on the
Are there further questions?
Madam Chair.
Yes, Senator Dunbar.
Thank you for being here, Ms. Schultz.
So the letter reference is active constructive negotiations with Glenforne.
How long have those negotiations been going on?
Through the chair to Senator dunbar, the letters specify that we have been
negotiating with initially AGDC since 2025.
24.
24?
Oh, you're right, it's 2026 now, that's right.
So I'm guessing you have a sense of what month they started, if that is possible, and then
also going to questions I believe the chair had earlier.
Is it actually Glenfarn that Conoco is negotiating with, or is it eight star, any kind of important
Through the chair to senator Dunbar, I don't know that off the top of my head
But I'm happy to get back to the committee with that information
Thank you. Thank You madam chair
Any further questions?
Seeing none. Thanks you very much, Miss Schultz.
Thank. You
So
my
takeaway from this meeting is that we need to have
AGDC come before this committee.
Now my reason for saying that is knowing now what eight star is comprised of, two Glenfar,
two glenfarn members, one AGTC person who is apparently there to represent the state
of Alaska, and there's a public member to whom the public could actually communicate
as well as all of us of course. I will try to get an email contact for Janet Wiese,
the public member, so that the Public has that input. But that is what constitutes eight-star.
But I think we need to have Mr. Richards come and answer some of the questions as far as
how he is representing the State of Alaska's interests in these things. The question about
I think we heard from DNR that the North Star has CO2 in it,
whereas Point Thompson is much less CO-2,
probably can be used without any kind of removal of the CO 2.
It's such a small amount, I believe it's 4% or less.
But at the same time, if I'm not mistaken,
we were told that there was no gas pipeline
from Point Thomson to Prudhup.
So, that seems to be a challenge, as far as getting the gas there, right?
At the same time that it would be not a tremendous task to build that gas pipeline.
So that is something I will pursue, getting AGDC before the committee to answer some of
these questions as the representative for the state of Alaska on 8th Star's board of
four members.
This concludes our meeting for today.
Yes, Senator Dunbar.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, if I can just.
Yes please.
Just two quick things before you wrap up.
First, I reread the letter and it does specify
the exact month, December 2025.
So I apologize for that.
The second is just in terms of a preview
for the conversation with Mr. Richards.
I think it would be helpful for him to explain to us
and to the public why
Despite the fact that Alaska owns the gas, despite the
fact we have a seat at the table, because there's a
public entity, a at-the-table through 8-star, and 8
stars a party to these negotiations, we still can't
know.
What the contracts hold I think it is baffling for a lot of members of the public this idea that we cannot know the volume
Or the price when we ourselves not only own the resource, but also have a legal seat at the table through eight star
So just a just to question to put out there for when. We eventually have Mr. Richards before us
Senator John Bart that really is a good summary of
The questions I'm going to ask him to address. I
think
this committee, the legislature needs to be explained clearly.
What is the role of eight star?
What does the roll of Glenfarb?
And what is a role in the Legislature?
So, any other comments?
Questions?
Senator Clement.
This is just a follow up because I know you and
I have had some discussion off the record about.
There's a point in the future of the line gets built that they last the state has the option of buying
25% and I think some of our earlier discussions had been
Does that mean we now have a hundred and twenty five percent total that is compressed to a 100
Or are we buying that's what seventy twenty-five percent? That's owned by eight star
On the one hand we don't know because we haven't seen the agreements, but as I've listened to these discussions
My suspicion is it's more likely that?
the structure is set up so that we essentially buy eight stars interest and become the set 25
percent owner in Glenfarn stays at 75 percent. I don't know because I haven't seen the agreements.
That's what I suspect is going on. And I think the interesting challenge, which is
part of the question I had asked with the folks from Exxon, that if we were buying 25 percent in
we would be, we wouldn't know all the details before we bought.
And if we move for three or four years and the line is built and we're exercising our 25%,
we as the new owner of 25% should be entitled to know
all of the detail of these agreements that we don't see today.
And as potential owner, of twenty five percent, I think an argument could have made we ought to
know that too.
from a public standpoint. I think it's troubling because we have a very real
interest in this gas. Senator Klayman, my understanding is that Glenfarn will
remain the 75% owner. Alaska has the option, has a six-month window after
Prices are established, et cetera, to purchase in up to 25%.
So if the pipe itself is a $10 billion project,
I don't know if that's a number,
but that was sort of what it was back in 2014.
25% of that, we could pony up $2.5 billion,
and own 25%, of the that.
The full project if it is $60 billion
$15 billion, I don't know, unless our budget changes significantly.
I dunno how we do that, but that's the kind of money that we're talking about to have
any ownership in this.
So that is clarity that I am going to request Mr. Richards to provide to the committee.
When will the numbers be known for the state to understand what it would cost to buy in 25% or less?
Maybe we only buy 2%, I don't know.
But when, what is the point in time when that will be know and what
is his role in representing the State of Alaska in this project?
So I will endeavor to get him here sooner than later.
possibly even by Wednesday, though we do have the regulatory commission of Alaska also there
coming on Wednesday. They're going to be the question I've asked to them is looking back
at 2013 when House Bill 4 passed. The authority of the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska was really rained back in terms of oversight over a gas project and it was done.
in preparation for the Exxon-led project.
So where do they stand now and what authority do we need
to reestablish perhaps for RCA, pardon me, R CA?
So that's what I've asked them to address.
So any other comments or?
Anything?
All right.
Great.
Well, with that then, this committee will stand adjourned.
Let the record reflect.
The time is 4.24 p.m.