London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

Agenda for the first meeting today, due to start @ 10am Juneau time:

Overview: Senate Floor Amendments by Matt Kissinger, Commercial Director, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)

Presentation: S-Corp Fiscal Modeling by Dan Stickel, Chief Economist, Alaska Department of Revenue (DOR)

Invited Testimony from Glenfarne

Yesterday's opening meeting, if I understood it correctly, was an attempt to establish the facts surrounding the implications to the Alaska LNG project of the Senate Finance Committee's alternative provisions to the House's tax restructuring bill. There was some to and fro about a leaked draft document governing the financial obligations for parties if Glenfarne was to remove itself from the project. The Dept of Revenue then presented an updated model of the SoA's revenue from the project based on the Senate Finance Committee's provisions.

If I'm correct (?), today the Committee will be examining the implications of the amendments to the bill introduced in the full Floor Session of the Senate in the previous special session. They will also be discussing the Legislature's long held ambition to remove a tax break from Hilcorp worth about $100m p.a. Hilcorp is the only one of the large Alaskan operators which enjoys this particular tax break, I think? Very broadly, the Senate wishes to use the tax restructuring bill to address this anomoly surrounding Hilcorp. The House sees it as a separate issue, to be dealt with seperately from the legislation only concerning the Alaska LNG project.

Ok, the latest Special Session began between 10-11am on Saturday. Both bodies then voted to re-convene as full chambers on the morning of Wednesday, 1st July.

In the mean time, the Senate and House have each nominated three of their members to form a joint committee which will work from today until 1/7/26 to hammer out a tax restructuring bill which will satisfy the House, the Senate, the Governonr and Glenfarne.

Senate nominees: Hoffman, Stedman and Cronk

House nominees: Schrage, Edgmon, Ruffridge

hTTps://alaskapublic.org/news/politics/alaska-legislature/2026-06-20/alaska-lawmakers-seek-gas-pipeline-tax-compromise-as-another-special-session-begins

I appreciate we may see some trolling incoming arguing there's no chance of the gasline going ahead, etc, etc. In actual fact, one of the key downside risks has decreased markedly. If the Senate Majority was truly intent on shutting down the Glenfarne proposal, they wouldn't have voted in favour of *any* type of tax restructuring measure on Friday. The fact the Senate voted 12-8 in favour of *some* version of a bill which would see property taxes removed in favour of a volumetric-based tax clearly shows a constructive intent to see the project move forward. Prior to the Senate vote on Friday, it was not clear the Senate actually accepted property taxes must be removed if the project is to go ahead.

We *may* get shorters calling for PANR's SP to weaken throughout next week. They can shout all they wish, the truth is the likelihood of the Alaskan Senate killing the gasline has reduced; the Senate has finally conceded a volumetric tax must replace the existing property-based tax; the Senate has agreed to a joint committee to thrash out a bill acceptable to all parties which will operate from 20/6/26 - 1/7/26.

Personal view: the tax restructuring bill will pass on 1/7/26. The likelihood of a bill being passed which is acceptable to *all* parties has increased due to the actions of the past couple of weeks in Juneau. We can all be patient for another 10 days until the Legislature meets again on 1/7/26.

Well, well. The Senate Finance Committee has come up with a Committee Substitute (CS). The Committee is now hearing from the civil servants who, last night, were given the new clauses, the new parameters designed by the Senate Majority Caucus. The civil servants worked overnight to come up with a new tax revenue model using the Senate Majority's new instructions.

From what I can see (!) the House bill is still the main reference document, and this new Senate version either adds to the % number in taxes, or adds new tax collecting streams, or allocates the tax revenues to local boroughs rather than the state coffers, or is changing the dates of sunset clauses.

It's great that the Senate is making a serious attempt at providing amendments to the original House bill. However, my superficial take at time of writing is that the amendments will take longer than the next 12 hours (when the Special Session MUST end) to ensure the new model's calculations are correct, then explaining the CS to the whole Senate....and then explaining the CS to the whole House before organising votes in both chambers. The Senate Finance Chairman has already suggested that there won't be time today to hear Glenfarne/AGDC's reaction to the Senate amendments. I struggle to see how on earth the chambers can vote on the new amendments when, perhaps without any intention, they've inserted a caluse which simply canoot fit within the tolerances of Glenfarne's development model?

***Feels*** to me that it's going to be a tough ask to get it all done by cob today. If the Governor tells everyone to stay in Juneau for the weekend (and next week?) say, I reckon this tax restructuring bill passes. Importantly, most of the politicians are still saying their underlying ambition is to ensure the project goes ahead.

NB NB NB OK, the Committee Substitute has just this minute been moved out of the Committee to the Full Senate floor, by a vote of 7-0. Sounds like the full Senate will now meet to consider all these new amendments, offer amendments to the amendments (!), and then to vote on a Senate bill before sending it to the House.

Some Senators in the Finance committee are still saying they think it can get done today. Hmmmm.....we'll see. These politicians sure do love the sound of their own voices!!

The Senate Finance Committee is meeting all day on Tuesday, 16th June. AGDC and RCA look to have sent officers to this meeting to allow the committee members to engage in Q&A over the changes made to the bill prior to the House voting it through last week.

The next House Floor Session is scheduled to begin on 17/6/26 @ 10.30am, local time.

The next Senate Floor Session is scheduled to begin on 17/6/26 @ 11am, local time.

Opinion: it *looks* to me that both chambers are prepared for a spot of political horse-trading tomorrow (Wednesday). Both chambers have to pass an identically-worded bill prior to sending it to the Governor for his signature. I can't be certain but it *feels* like a number of Senators wish to make some amendments to the House version of the bill.

I guess there's also the chance the Senate will wish to wait until Thursday before holding an up/down vote on the bill in order to see whether the Governor vetoes any other bills passed by the legislature in the regular session?

NB. This Special Session must close at cob on Friday, 19th June. I hope and trust it's not required, however, from reading the Alaskan press, if the legislature doesn't pass a unified bill by cob on Friday the Governor can instruct the legislature to open *another* Special Session starting as early as Monday, 22nd June.

I've been monitoring the debate over the gasline really quite closely. Polls of Alaskan residents appear rock solid at c.75% being in favour of the gasline. In the last week alone, Glenfarne has signed MOUs with the Alaskan unions (to preferentially employ Alaskans when construction begins) and one of the major local utilities (to supply gas to its power station). In addition there have been a number of highly publicised rallies held in support of the gasline in various locations throughout Alaska. The unions and all the speakers at the rallies have urged their members and rally attendees to call their Senator to urge them to vote for the tax restructuring bill this week.

Phone calls from consituents and some pressure from the Governor's office (*and* perhaps the Trump admin directly) and I reckon there's a more than decent chance the bill will pass this week. If the bill passess, IMHO PANR's SP moves into the 20s as the market begins to discount the positive implications for PANR of the gasline being constructed.

08:13

Behold the scribblings of an ill-educated troll. Note his repeated pleas for someone, for anyone, to acknowledge what he considers to be his crowning "Gotcha" moment.

"However, can you please address Pat Galvin's heavily emphasised statement that PANR's gas only flows with oil? Therefore in order to achieve all of the benefits espoused, it must first get the oil to flow."

cbaron - read and digest. Not once since 2010, has any director of Great Bear or PANR ever declared that this project was "gas only" or "primarily gas" or "gas can (or will) be produced and sold first before any crude sales" or is “gas dependent”. The fact you actually believe you've uncovered some massive hole in PANR's investment case, and then like the online embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect chose to post your miscomprehension on a public forum, shows exactly what you are. A pathetic, ill-educated, poorly researched troll.

For all other forum readers, not only has the joint and inseperable production of oil and gas from PANR's reservoirs ALWAYS been understood by GB/PANR employees and shareholders since day 1, the company has designed a development plan accordingly. Until the gasline became a distinct possibility, PANR management had described to the market the planned ratio of 3 production wells to one gas reinjection well. Let's all ask Inspector cbaron Cluseau why PANR designed such a development plan if they thought the oil and gas could be produced separately from the reservoir? Let's all ask Inspector cbaron Cluseau why it was that PANR always had to seek permission to flare off the associated gas when conducting Long Term Production Tests at Alkaid and Dubhe if the gas could be produced separately?

Let me be crystal clear. For PANR's projects to proceed, the commercial production of hydrocarbon liquids will be, by far, the primary determinant when looking at future revenue streams. Let's all ask Inspector cbaron Cluseau for a single example of a PANR employee or market analyst who has stated anything other than that fact? Let me give you the answer. cbaron won't be able to provide such a quote because precisely no-one has stated anything other than the revenue model is primarily liquids dependent.

I trust we have now settled cbaron’s truly frightening “Gotcha” question?!

[End of Part 1, see above for Part 2[

[Part 2, continued from Part 1 below]

D) The gasline opens up a *potential* route to market for PANR’s helium. Helium is an inert gas and therefore can be transported via the gasline along with natural gas from the North Slope to the export facilities in Nikiski. AHS Baker Hughes confirmed the presence of comparatively noteworthy amounts of helium at Theta West-1. If, and I repeat if, helium is confirmed in similar quantities at the proposed Theta West-2 drill location then PANR’s largest reservoir, the basin floor fan, could contain $30-$60bn worth of helium. Sure, the SoA will be entitled to royalties and there’ll have to be enhanced gas treatment facilities at each end of the gasline but those will be great problems to have. And before any sceptics ask how PANR will incorporate helium extraction, treatment, gasline transportation, freezing/liquefaction and export to their development plan, I reply as follows. There will be a multitude of multi-national chemical and commodity firms falling over themselves to commercialise a helium supply of that quantum.

All of which means that, should the tax restructuring bill pass the Alaskan legislature this week, all else being equal the PANR investment case will be strengthened = increase in value of its equity *and* enhanced interest in farming in to PANR's assets, hopefully at a higher implied value.

The less sophisticated trolls will no doubt argue that there are still many dominoes to fall prior to the gasline achieving FID. Fine, they can argue that if they wish. But here’s how market analysts view such definitive steps forward. Let’s say there’s an analyst out there called cbaron, and he thinks the PANR upside investment case has a 1% CoS. Ok? Well, even if the analyst cbaron is forced to admit the passage of the tax restructuring bill increases the CoS to 1.1% or 1.5% or 2%....that’s still an upside risk which *ought* to translate into a higher value for PANR’s equity.

Personally, I assess the PANR investment case will be materially strengthened by the passage of the tax bill. All else being equal, if the bill passes I forecast we will see the PANR SP rise markedly as investors realise PANR is, by far, the most leveraged play on the gasline being greenlit and constructed.

I also reckon there's a reasonable chance shorter term traders will join fundamental investors by being prepared to play the "tax bill pass or fail trade" this week when they acknowledge the House voted by a larger margin than forecast to pass the bill - by 34 votes to 5. An interesting week ahead for PANR.

There has been an anti-intellectual, anti-mathematical argument disseminated on various social media platforms, including this forum, which contends that the passing of the tax restructuring bill this week will have little to no effect on the PANR investment case.

I believe this view to be intellectually incoherent. What follows are a few bullet points which serve to illustrate that, all else being equal, the passage of the tax restructuring bill will increase the CoS for PANR.

A) The gasline opens up a *potential* new revenue stream for PANR's non-corrosive, ultra-low CO2 natural gas. We know that the alternative sources of natural gas for Phase 1 of the project all have far higher CO2 content than PANR’s gas. This is an established scientific fact, no debate.

In addition, we know the extra pipeline required to connect Point Thomson to Deadhorse is assessed to cost an extra $400-500m over the original budget for the Deadhorse to Nikiski gasline as initially envisaged.

Combine these facts with PANR’s sale price being 33% lower than the alternative suppliers' selling price and it is little wonder Glenfarne/AGDC's first Gas Sales Precedent Agreement (GSPA) was with PANR.

B) The gasline opens up a *potential* reduction in development capex in the path to first production *and* in the self-funded capex during the multi-decade production plan thereafter. A reduction in the ratio of production wells:gas reinjection wells from 3:1 to 4:1 to far higher ratios (perhaps only one gas reinjection well per production pad in the long term?) will significantly improve project economics, especially in the early development stages prior to self-funded growth.

C) The gasline opens up a *potential* channel to external finance. The GSPA envisages annual gas sales of up to c.$180m for PANR. There are a number of financial institutions and commodity houses which have the capacity to securitise future cashflows from a 20 year gas sales contract in return for providing upfront capital. PANR's discussions with such parties will become far more serious if/when the tax bill passes.

[End of Part 1, see Part 2 above]

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Scot126

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)