The most troubling aspect of the recent controversy surrounding the Alaska LNG project isn’t simply that a confidential commercial agreement became public. It’s what the episode says about Alaska’s ability to attract the private investment needed to build major infrastructure projects.
There is an important distinction that has been lost in much of the public discussion. A confidential business agreement is not a “secret” document. Confidentiality provisions are standard business practice. Every major company—whether in energy, technology, construction, manufacturing, or health care—enters into agreements that protect proprietary financial information, negotiating positions, and commercial strategies. Businesses rely on confidentiality because competitors, customers, and investors all have legitimate interests that require sensitive information to remain private.
If Alaska develops a reputation for treating confidential commercial agreements as political documents to be publicly circulated whenever they become convenient, companies considering billions of dollars of investment will naturally ask whether Alaska is a place where proprietary business information can remain protected.
That concern should matter to every Alaskan, regardless of where they stand on the Alaska LNG project.
The situation also raises legitimate questions because some of the lawmakers involved are licensed attorneys. Attorneys are held to professional standards that extend beyond ordinary political debate, including responsibilities concerning confidential information and respect for the legal rights of others. Whether any professional rule applies under these specific circumstances is ultimately a question for the appropriate authorities—not political commentators. But it is entirely appropriate to ask whether licensed professionals should exercise heightened caution when confronted with materials that appear to have been disclosed outside the normal course of business.
Equally important is the substance of the leaked agreement itself. Much attention has focused on provisions discussing circumstances under which the State of Alaska could owe compensation to Glenfarne. Presented without context, those provisions create the impression that Alaska faces an enormous financial obligation.
That is not the full story.
Commercial contracts routinely allocate risk by addressing unlikely or even remote contingencies. These provisions are designed to answer the question, “What happens if something extraordinary occurs?” They are not predictions that those events are expected to happen.
In this case, the scenario receiving the most attention appears to contemplate circumstances in which the State itself would terminate or otherwise prevent the project from moving forward. Public testimony before the Legislature has indicated that such a scenario is considered highly unlikely under the structure of the agreement. Project officials have stated that Glenfarne—not the State—bears the commercial risk if the project fails under ordinary business circumstances.
Reasonable people can debate whether the Alaska LNG project is the right investment, whether the tax structure is appropriate, or whether the agreement adequately protects Alaska’s interests. Those are healthy public policy debates.
But those debates should be based on complete context—not selective excerpts from confidential commercial documents whose disclosure may itself undermine Alaska’s reputation as a place where businesses can confidently invest.
At a time when Alaska is competing globally for capital, trust is an economic asset. Companies deciding where to invest billions of dollars pay close attention not only to tax rates and regulations, but also to whether governments respect the confidentiality that underpins complex commercial negotiations.
Listening to the Senate debate about how to improve Alaska’s economy with a gas pipeline—the only major economic development project actually on the table right now—you might think our state has stumbled onto a brand-new renewable resource: misinformation. It appears to be available in unlimited quantities, requires no permits, and regenerates faster than anyone can fact-check it. By the time one incorrect claim is corrected, three more have already come online and reached full production. If misinformation were an export commodity, some Alaska Senators would be setting production records.
A big shout out to Representative Kevin McCabe for providing the following context to some of the misinformation from last Friday’s Senate floor session:
Why the “$5 Billion Profit” Claim is Misleading
The $5 billion figure is not developer profit.
The number comes from the Alaska Department of Revenue model and represents projected cash flow from the entire pipeline system, not profit earned by a private company.
Alaska owns 25% of the project.
Through the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), Alaska holds a 25% ownership stake.
Approximately one-quarter of any project returns flow directly to Alaska.
Money earned by Alaska as an owner is not money being “taken from Alaskans.”
The claim ignores the enormous investment required.
The Alaska LNG project is estimated to cost roughly $46 billion.
Investors must commit capital for years before seeing returns.
The state’s model assumes about a 10% return on investment—an expected return for a project of this size and risk, not an excessive windfall.
Without investors, there is no pipeline.
If investors cannot earn a reasonable return, the project will not be built.
Without the project, North Slope gas remains stranded and generates no economic value.
The numbers are long-term projections, not annual cash payments today.
The Department of Revenue model extends through 2062.
The largest projected revenues occur decades into the future after the project reaches full operation.
Future-dollar projections can sound much larger when inflation and timing are ignored.
The claim overlooks what Alaska receives.
State analysis projects approximately $22 billion to $30 billion in revenue to Alaska over the life of the project.
Additional revenues are projected for local governments.
Alaska also benefits through ownership returns, royalties, production taxes, and economic activity.
The analysis ignores energy benefits for Alaskans.
The project would provide long-term access to Alaska gas for Alaska consumers.
Increased gas supply is expected to improve energy security and affordability.
The claim ignores jobs and economic growth.
Construction and operation of the project would create thousands of jobs.
The project would generate economic activity across multiple sectors and communities.
Oil started flowing last month at the huge Pikka project, co-owned and operated by Australian company Santos. And Repsol has plans to search for more oil and expand production on nearby land.
Josu Jon Imaz, a former member of European Parliament, runs Spain’s largest oil company.
Recently, though, his focus has drifted thousands of miles from Madrid to the far north.
Imaz’s company, Repsol, is one of several oil and gas businesses racing to drill in Alaska’s Arctic — where, after a decades-long decline in production, the industry is undergoing a stunning revival amid a push by the Trump administration to open new areas to development.
American oil firms like ConocoPhillips and Hilcorp operate larger fields in the state and have tended to get more attention.
But Repsol is quickly emerging as one of the industry’s most zealous players on the North Slope, where the company and its partners have snatched up hundreds of thousands of acres of oil and gas leases since last fall and recently began production at a multibillion-dollar new field, Pikka.
“It’s an area that could change, in some way, the history of Repsol,” Imaz said in a May interview with Northern Journal on the sidelines of an energy conference in Anchorage.
In a series of speeches this spring, Imaz described Alaska as a “company-maker” for Repsol. The company has spent less money in the state than other players, but it’s significantly smaller than U.S. giants like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips — so each dollar it spends represents a comparatively larger gamble.
The U.S.-Iran deal and the potentially imminent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz do not mean that oil and gas trade will quickly return to its previous levels.
A U.S.-Iran agreement could reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but shipping and production will not immediately return to normal.
More than 10 million bpd of Middle Eastern oil production has been shut in, and some fields may take months to restart fully.
Iraq faces a slower recovery than Saudi Arabia or the UAE because its southern exports depend heavily on access through Basrah.
The U.S.-Iran deal and the potentially imminent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz do not mean that oil and gas trade will quickly return to its previous levels. The announcement of the deal is just the first step, and it could take months for oil and gas shipments in the region to return to pre-war levels.
Middle Eastern producers have been forced to shut in more than 10 million barrels per day of oil production since the Strait of Hormuz was closed three and a half months ago. Producers will need months to fully ramp up wells to previous output levels, while the status of the Strait of Hormuz – even if it re-opens on Friday as expected – is still unclear.
“We don’t know what open means or what the speed of evacuation of trapped material is going to be,” Daniel Sternoff, senior fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, told AP late on Sunday.
Some producers like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would be quicker to restore output compared to Iraq, for example, which had to curtail the highest proportion of its production due to its inability to move the crude out of its southern fields through Basrah.
“Places like Iraq could be much more challenged because they’ve had a much bigger shut-in, their fields are more difficult,” Alan Gelder, senior vice president of refining, chemicals, and oil markets at Wood Mackenzie, said.
“It may well take about a year before they get back,” the expert told AP.
Hancock said it is interested in working with SpaceX in the future
The stake in SpaceX, which last week pulled off the largest initial public offering ever, is the single largest investment outside of iron ore made by her closely held company, Hancock Prospecting, one of the world’s major exporters of the steelmaking commodity.
The investment reflects Hancock’s confidence in Musk and recognizes the need for the West to keep investing in technology and innovation, Rinehart said in emailed remarks on Monday.
We see SpaceX as a rare business: led by a truly exceptional person, technically exceptional and operating in sectors that are crucial, and with long-term potential,” she said. Rinehart didn’t specify the value of the investment but a person familiar with the investment said it was valued in excess of $1 billion.
Last week’s historic IPO, powered by an army of individual investors, turned SpaceX into one of the U.S.’s most-valuable listed companies and Musk, who founded SpaceX in 2002, into the world’s first trillionaire. The company ended its first day of trading Friday with a market value of $2.1 trillion.
While policymakers debate what Alaska needs from a proposed gasline project to fund government and sustain future revenues, Alaska’s private-sector companies are already putting real capital at risk. They are investing thousands of hours, spending money on bid proposals, with no guarantee of success.
Every day, these Alaska businesses make decisions based on opportunity, not certainty. Before asking whether a project is worth pursuing, lawmakers should take note of the companies already investing their own time, money, and expertise because they believe Alaska’s future is worth the risk.
Across Alaska, companies are investing countless hours and thousands of dollars pursuing the AKLNG opportunity. AGDC cut a deal with Glenfarne, the lead developer, to carry all of the state’s risk to protect Alaskans. The private sector is developing bids, preparing engineering plans, preparing their workforce , planning to purchase equipment, securing financing, and building partnerships. They do this knowing there are no guarantees.
No contract is assured. No project is certain until the final investment decision is made and construction begins.
Yet companies continue to step forward.
Why?
Because they understand something fundamental about economic development: opportunity requires managed risk – and these Alaskan companies are savvy – many of them took a risk on TAPS.
Every successful project in Alaska’s history—from the construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline to major mines, roads, ports, and energy infrastructure—began long before anyone could guarantee success. Businesses invested time, talent, and capital because they believed the opportunity justified the risk.
That’s how private enterprise works.
Companies evaluate the facts. They study market conditions. They assess challenges. They analyze financial projections. Then they decide whether the potential reward is worth the investment.
When Alaska businesses independently reach the same conclusion—that a project is worth pursuing—that sends a powerful signal.
It doesn’t mean the project is guaranteed.
It doesn’t mean challenges don’t exist.
It simply means the people with their own money, employees, and futures on the line believe the opportunity is real.
Too often, our legislative conversations focus exclusively on what could go wrong. The result is a culture of skepticism that can obscure what is actually happening on the ground.
Today, Alaska companies are not waiting around for certainty. They are preparing. They are investing. They are competing. They are positioning themselves for the opportunity that AKLNG presents – they believe in the potential to create jobs, strengthen communities, and grow Alaska’s economy.
That willingness to act matters.
The private sector understands that if every investment required absolute certainty, nothing would ever get built. No mine would open. No pipeline would be constructed. No new energy infrastructure would move forward.
Progress has always required people willing to take calculated risks.
The question facing policymakers is not whether risk exists. Risk exists in every significant undertaking. The real question is whether Alaska will create an environment that encourages investment and rewards those willing to pursue opportunity.
Because while some are still debating whether a project can happen, Alaska’s businesses are already doing work necessary to make it happen.
APA Corp. has agreed to acquire Savant Alaska LLC for approximately $70 million, gaining ownership of key North Slope pipeline and oilfield infrastructure that will support future exploration and development activities in Alaska.
The transaction includes the Badami production facilities, which have a nameplate capacity of approximately 40,000 barrels per day, and the Nutaaq Pipeline, an 80,000-bpd crude oil pipeline that connects the Badami area to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).
APA said the acquisition is expected to improve development flexibility across its eastern North Slope acreage by providing direct control of infrastructure needed for drilling, production and transportation activities. The assets are expected to support exploration and appraisal programs planned for the 2026-2027 winter drilling season.
In addition to the pipeline and production facilities, the deal includes supporting infrastructure such as housing accommodations, a grind-and-inject system, barge and wharf facilities, runway access and gravel resources.
“The acquisition secures control of strategic infrastructure adjacent to our eastern North Slope acreage and enhances our ability to execute our planned drilling program,” APA CEO John Christmann said. He added that ownership of the infrastructure should provide greater flexibility for future development planning.
APA will assume operatorship of the existing joint venture and plans to drill one exploration well and one appraisal well during the 2026-2027 winter season. The appraisal program will help evaluate the Sockeye complex and assess opportunities to utilize existing Badami infrastructure.
The acquisition also includes approximately 17,000 net acres in the producing Badami unit, approximately 75,000 net acres in the Grey Owl unit and additional adjacent acreage. Following the transaction, APA’s eastern North Slope position will total approximately 487,000 gross acres.
The deal is expected to close by the end of 2026, subject to regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions.
With progress being made on the Ambler Road and the Arctic project accepted for streamlined federal permitting under FAST-41, Ambler Metals is aligning both its Northwest Alaska fieldwork and executive office toward development of the first mine in the Ambler Mining District
Ambler Metals’ transition from the advanced exploration stage into permitting and future development was underscored by the naming of Ron Rimelman as the president of the joint venture held equally by Trilogy Metals Inc. and South32 Ltd.
“Ron’s expertise in the environmental review process and deep knowledge of Alaska make him a strong leader to guide the Arctic Project to the next phase,” said Ambler Metals Managing Director Kaleb Froehlich, who will work alongside the new president moving forward.
Rimelman’s experience comes from more than 40 years of expertise in the environmental review and permitting of natural resource development projects across North America, including serving as vice president of environment, health, safety, and sustainability at Novagold Resources, where he spearheaded permitting for the Donlin Gold project.
As vice president of environmental services for global engineering firm Tetra Tech Inc., he also carried out environmental and permitting work for the Greens Creek, Kensington, and Red Dog mines.
Now, he brings that depth of experience to Ambler Metals.
“Having been involved in environmental planning for projects in Alaska for many years, it’s an honor to continue leading responsible resource development in the Upper Kobuk as president of Ambler Metals,” said Rimelman. “I look forward to working alongside our world-class team to successfully complete permitting for the Arctic Project, which would create high-quality jobs and unlock significant economic opportunity in Alaska, particularly for local residents and shareholders.”
His leadership comes just weeks after Ambler Metals initiated federal permitting for developing a mine at Arctic that is expected to deliver 1.9 billion pounds of copper, 2.3 billion lb of zinc, 388 million lb of lead, 40.6 million ounces of silver, and 386,000 oz of gold over an initial 12 years of operation.
In mid-May, the Arctic mine permits were accepted for review under FAST-41, a federal program designed to improve transparency, coordination, and predictability for strategically important infrastructure and resource projects in the United States.
The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, which oversees FAST-41, is currently consulting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and coordinating agencies. This initial consultation will determine the federal permitting timeline, which is expected to be posted to the Arctic project’s FAST-41 dashboard by mid-July.
As Arctic settles into the federal permitting process, Ambler Metals has launched a 2026 field program centered on collecting information that will support a future development decision for the high-grade copper-zinc-lead-silver-gold project on the JV’s Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects in the Ambler District.
