Denali National Park and Preserve today officially opened the Park Road to private vehicle traffic as far as Mile 30, the Teklanika Rest Area.
This limited spring access is the result of recent warm weather and low snow levels, which aided road crews in their seasonal efforts to clear the route, the Park Service said.
While the road is open, conditions remain variable. Snow, ice, and muddy patches may still be present, particularly in shaded sections. The road will remain open to Mile 30, weather permitting, through May 19. On May 20, the park’s seasonal transit bus service will begin, and the road will once again be restricted to private vehicles beyond Mile 15, near the Savage River.
Though the Teklanika Rest Area is open and accessible despite being wet, park restrooms at Teklanika, Savage River, and Mountain Vista are also available for public use. However, all campgrounds west of park headquarters will stay closed until May 20.
Visitors should also be aware of ongoing construction activity related to the Pretty Rocks bridge project. Heavy equipment traffic can be expected from the park entrance to East Fork, and drivers are urged to proceed with caution, the Park Service cautioned.
The Park Road remains completely closed from the East Fork Bridge to Polychrome Overlook due to the Pretty Rocks Landslide. There is no access—vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle—through this section, and the road is not plowed past the landslide. Those venturing beyond the closure by hiking around Polychrome Mountain should be prepared for remote backcountry conditions and must be entirely self-sufficient, as emergency services are extremely limited and no facilities are open beyond that point.
In addition, a bear capture operation is scheduled for May 5–9, during which time there will be a temporary closure of the Park Road west of the Teklanika River bridge to all bikers and pedestrians, as well as all backcountry unitswest of the river. The closure will extend until three days after the final bear is captured, potentially through May 12. The bear-capture operation is a routine effort by wildlife biologists to monitor young bears and maintain tracking collars on bears in the park.
With spring underway, bears are emerging from hibernation. Visitors are strongly advised to carry bear spray, keep food properly stored, and maintain a minimum distance of 300 yards from bears and 25 yards from all other wildlife, the agency said.
Weather conditions can shift quickly during this time of year, the status of road openings may change with little notice. For the most up-to-date information on road conditions, closures, and safety advisories, visitors can to check the Denali National Park website or contact park officials directly.
The first climb of Mt. McKinley this year is scheduled for May 11 – May 31, with Alpine Ascents International, a legacy guiding company founded in 1986 by Todd Burleson. Every year, about 1,100 climbers register to climb Mt. McKinley, North America’s tallest peak.
The debate over school funding in Alaska’s Capitol is intensifying — and it’s not just about the money. With the 2026 governor’s race looming on the horizon, education policy has become a political flashpoint, as lawmakers spar over the suddenly-relevant House Bill 57, which is now funding “turducken” bill (three-bird roast) and what it signals to voters.
At the heart of the debate is the Base Student Allocation, a metric used to determine how much the state spends per student. Some Democratic lawmakers are pushing for a significant increase in the BSA, a move aimed as much at gaining political ground as it is at funding classrooms.
But on Thursday, Gov. Mike Dunleavy took a strategic approach on social media, diffusing partisan tensions with a message of cooperation — and clear expectations.
“Let me be clear,” Dunleavy wrote. “If legislators make a few key edits, including restoring the reading grants, adding open enrollment, ensuring full funding for correspondence students, and including the four charter school reforms, I will sign this bill. I look forward to working with lawmakers to make HB 57 a bill that strengthens outcomes, expands opportunity, and responsibly increases education funding.”
HB 57 is currently stalled in the Senate Finance Committee, where it still lacks some of the provisions Dunleavy is demanding — most notably, language granting additional authorizing authority for new charter schools and full funding for Alaska’s growing number of correspondence students.
In the Senate a coalition of Democrats and left-of-center Republicans must decide whether to meet the governor halfway or challenge him head-on. If they proceed with the current version of the bill, they risk another high-profile veto, just as happened with House Bill 69 earlier last week. That could lead to a showdown that could dominate headlines heading into campaign season.
With education emerging as a defining issue for both sides, Alaskans are likely to see more than just a budget battle play out in Juneau. Alaskans are seeing the early skirmishes of a governor’s race where classrooms, charter schools, and funding formulas are on the ballot, and this governor is trying to get the matter settled before it becomes the battering ram for the Democrats in 2026.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memorandum Wednesday directing the Pentagon to expedite the reinstatement of service members who were discharged for refusing the Covid-19 vaccine during the Biden Administration. This action follows President Donald Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order, which undid the Biden Covid vaccine mandates.
“We’re doing everything we can, as quickly as we can, to reinstate those who were affected by that policy,” Hegseth said.
The Department of Defense’s now has initiated outreach efforts to contact the more than 8,700 former service members affected by the Biden mandate. Defense has sent letters of apology, emails, phone calls, and is providing information through official websites and social media channels to try to reach the men and women who were separated from service and inform them about how they can come back at their previous rank, and the along with the possibility of getting back pay and benefits they would have earned had they been retained in the military.
Under the new policy, those who were involuntarily separated solely due to vaccine refusal are eligible for reinstatement and back pay. The back pay will be calculated based on what the service member would have received had they not been discharged, minus any income or benefits they received during their time away from the military.
“It hasn’t been perfect, and we know that,” Hegseth said. “We’re having an ongoing conversation with you to get it right. [We’re] working with the White House as well. We want anyone impacted by that vaccine mandate back into the military — people of conscience, warriors of conscience — back in our formations.”
The Army has reenlisted at least two dozen soldiers who were discharged for refusing the shot. Other branches, including the Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy, have initiated outreach to the men and women they discharged during Biden.
“The guidance also will facilitate the removal of adverse actions on service members solely for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine, including discharge upgrades and less than fully honorable discharges for individuals separated from refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine,” Hegseth said. “We’re trying to scrub all that, clean all that up.”
In July 2021, vaccination mandates were issued for federal employees, federal contractors, and military service members.
Despite growing evidence suggesting vaccinated individuals could still transmit Covid-19, these mandates continued to be enforced, significantly affecting the American workforce.
Despite eventual rescission of the mandates due to constitutional, statutory, financial, and other harms inflicted upon citizens, service members, and businesses, the military mandate remained.
An estimated 1.4 million active-duty and reserve service members were subject to the mandate, including members of the National Guard.
The community of Tok, deep in Interior Alaska, became a hub of forestry expertise this week, as professionals from across the state convened for the three-day annual meeting of the Alaska Society of American Foresters.
Organized by the Tanana chapter under Chairman Jeremy Douse, the gathering featured more than a dozen insightful presentations covering the latest updates in forestry management and Alaska Division of Forestry operations.
Attendees praised the line-up of speakers, noting that every presentation was “timely, succinct, and enlightening,” reflecting a growing urgency in addressing the complex issues facing Alaska’s forests and fire suppression strategies.
Two major topics dominated the meeting: Timber carbon credits and fires started in urban encampments
Timber carbon credits and Senate Bill 48
If Alaska sells timber off as carbon credits and the forests burn, does Alaska have to give the money back to the purchaser of the credits? Does this liability stretch to the life of the carbon credits when the cash is paid up front? It’s a question that is being asked as the state moves into the global carbon credit business, and the foresters attending the meeting discussed it at length.
The rapidly evolving field of timber carbon credits and implications of Senate Bill 48, signed into law in Alaska in 2023, which laid the foundation for the state’s entry into the carbon credit market, is an arcane, but important topic. Key updates highlighted the continued significance of Alaska-based sales, including the Chugach Alaska Corporation’s transaction, currently the largest known sale in North America, and Sealaska’s sale, the second largest.
Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources is expected to open a public comment period in early 2026 regarding its carbon credit sales strategy. Meanwhile, Doyon, Limited is emerging as another major player exploring this industry.
However, challenges remain. Who is responsible for fire suppression on carbon credit land? Who is responsible for fire suppression for carbon credit land owned by Native corporations?
If a private company is paid today for promising to not log specific land for 40 years, or 100 years, and that land is now designated as not eligible for fire suppression (called “limited”), does the private company pick up the suppression costs?
The concepts of fire suppression costs on lands enrolled in credit programs are emerging as potentially costly and complicated issues. Notably, there is currently no compliance carbon market — either voluntary or regulatory — for lands north of the Alaska Range.
Only Michigan, to date, has sold carbon credits as a state government entity, placing them into the voluntary market, which has recently softened significantly. While the market has gone flat, Alaska even has not gone through the public comment period.
New fire suppression threats from urban encampments
A second pressing issue brought forth during the meeting was the unprecedented wildfire risk posed by homeless encampments, particularly in Anchorage.
Speakers emphasized that such encampments represent a new and unpredictable fire threat that defies the typical patterns of Alaska wildfires.
While it remains impossible to predict the severity of a fire season in advance, experts warned that fires originating in homeless shantytowns could blur the line between urban fires and traditional wildfires. Because these encampments often involve flammable structures, outdoor fires, use of gasoline or other propellents as starter, and because they exist outside standard regulatory frameworks, the threat to surrounding areas during periods of low humidity and high winds is especially serious. This year, the wildfire season in Anchorage started early, due to low snowfall over the winter.
Forest fire managers may need the state to communicate clearly with municipal governments to let them know that local resources would be on the hook for suppression costs when fires start within city limits and then spread outside the city limits.
Current agreements used annually to allocate suppression costs — especially involving federal partners like the Departments of Interior and Agriculture — default to state payment through disaster declarations unless otherwise specified.
Redundancy in having the Alaska Departments of Law, and Natural Resources, and the 34th Alaska Legislature alert at least the Municipality of Anchorage of a potentially costly conflagration is one recommendation. The 1994 Miller’s Reach II Fire, in Big Lake cost about $50 million ($170 million in 2025 dollars) and was likely started by fireworks (as the Miller’s Reach I fire, a few days earlier was). It destroyed 344 structures in addition to the basic suppression costs.
With wildfire suppression costs having risen exponentially since the 1990s, attendees were reminded that suppression costs are just part of the picture. The damage to property and structures adds another layer of financial strain. A single wildfire ignited in a homeless encampment could require at least tens of millions of dollars to extinguish—underscoring the need for proactive planning and clear financial policies. In recent years a $60 million Alaska fire year is a larger year, but the homeless encampment situation might bring Alaska its first $100 million year.
House Bill 57, sponsored by Democrat Rep. Zack Fields, is intended to create policies and mandates to prohibit cell phone use I’m schools in Alaska.
But in Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday, it became so much more — hundreds of millions of dollars more. The committee substitute for the bill stuffed in a $700 per student increase to education in the Base Student Allocation, which is the basis of the state’s contributions to local school districts.
But wait, there’s more: The committee also added in a 10% increase in transportation funding for schools.
The bill, when it was just about curbing student cell phone access in schools, passed the House on April 16 on a vote of 34-6.
The new version, howeve, is a fight with Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who earlier this week offered House Bill 204, which has education policy reforms and a beefy funding increase.
The Senate Democrat-led majority doesn’t appear to want the governor to have a win in education, so they’ve stuffed the funding they want, without Dunleavy’s policies relating to school choice and performance expectation, into a bill that originally had almost no fiscal impact, but was a Democrat policy bill relating to schools.
Notable is that the Senate Finance Committee had scheduled hearing the cell phone bill before it even left the House. The committee asked no questions of presenter Rep. Fields, and immediately brought forth the committee substitute.
But now, the Finance Committee doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to move it to the floor. In fact, the Democrat-led majority had two emergency caucus meetings on Wednesday, which indicates there’s trouble in the caucus.
Just days ago , the governor vetoed House Bill 69, the massive education funding bill from Democrats that would have added $1,000 per student increase to the school districts on a permanent annual basis. Dunleavy then offered a new bill that included a smaller Base Student Allocation increase and his policy proposals.
But in the Senate there seems to be two camps — one camp wants to get things done, and the other camp, led by senators like Sen. Bill Wielechowski, are taking a “burn it down” approach so they can have something to use in the 2026 election cycle to beat up Republicans.
Almost certainly, if HB 57 makes it to the governor’s desk in its current condition, Dunleavy will veto that bill, as he did HB 69.
Meanwhile, Dunleavy’s House Bill 204, with its $560 BSA increase and another $35 million for various programs, has yet to be even scheduled for a hearing. The legislative session ends on May 21, just 27 days away.
We fought, we argued, we disagreed, and we were more blessed to know each other than you can imagine.
Dan Fagan was a hero of mine. Heroes are funny in that most of the time, you are somewhat distant from them. You don’t really know them. That is what helps to make them your hero. Dan was someone I knew very well. Perhaps I didn’t perfectly understand him, but I always knew him. His heart, his courage, his drive. After years and years of doing shows together and having it out on the radio, I can safely say I loved Dan. He was worth my time. He gave me his time, and he cared for me.
Dan was a funny guy in just about every way. What set Dan apart and built the greatest talk show in Alaska’s history was his humor. This was especially true with women (Sharon Leighow and Charisse Millett etc.) Dan found the humor in the uncomfortable and drew us in like moths to a flame.
We listened to Dan because we were always in on the joke, and he knew how to play it for all it was worth.
After KFQD, Dan, Bonnie Voves, and I did a show together for a long time. I haven’t talked to Bonnie about this, but I always thought he asked her to be on the show for both a new and enlightened perspective, but also because he knew he and I would fight, and neither of us knew when to quit fighting.
I remember when we were having some trouble with an issue, Dan would remind me of several things: I was wrong. He was right. And iron sharpens iron. He knew that we were both invested in our positions. That we thought, prayed, and researched them to be ready for battle each day. He liked to test me. My ability to stick to a point was what he liked most about talking to me.
Dan and I were very different in our approach to gathering information. I didn’t trust others as much as myself. I always figured they either had something to hide or something to gain, so I would trust my own research and instincts. There is, however, only so much you can do on your own. Dan cast a wide net. He interviewed people, asked a lot of questions, and had a nose for duplicitousness that rivaled a bloodhound. He loved asking gotcha questions. That’s another reason he rose to the top.
Dan always had a side and a team, and it was his most profound sorrow when members of his team would betray him. This angst was a constant friction between Dan and me. It was also one of the most significant parts of his heart and soul. He wanted the truth more than friends, more than comfort, and he wanted people to live up to his high expectations more than anything.
I could go on for a long time about Dan and everything I remember. All the things he taught me, and how much I miss having more of him in my life. Ultimately, I pray that we remember Dan fondly, with the humor and passion he was so gifted to possess and share with everyone he met.
Dan continues to inspire me to be my best self. For that, I thank him and pray his journey to Our Father’s arms is swift. Thank you for being my closest ally when I needed you most. May God bless you, Dan Fagan, as he blessed me for knowing you.
Glen Biegel is a technology security professional, Catholic father of nine, husband to a saint, and politically active conservative.
As Alaska continues to grapple with fiscal uncertainty, the Alaska Permanent Fund remains at the heart of the conversation. Its performance and structure profoundly affect our state’s budget, the future of the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), and the long-term economic health of Alaska. Yet its structure – specifically the division between the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA) and the principal – is no longer serving us well.
In fact, it’s creating a slow bleed of our spendable savings. Proposals to merge the two accounts into a single constitutionally protected fund are not just about simplifying accounting. They are about correcting a dangerous flaw in how we draw money from the Fund and effectively creating a spending limit on the Fund.
To understand why, we need to briefly unpack how the Fund works today.
The Fund is divided into two accounts: the principal, which is constitutionally protected and cannot be spent without a vote of the people, and the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA), which holds realized investment earnings and is fully spendable with a simple majority vote of the Legislature.
Since 2018, Alaska has followed a Percent of Market Value (POMV) draw system to sustainably use Fund earnings. The formula allows for a 5% annual draw based the average total market value of the entire fund – both the principal and the ERA. However, there’s a fundamental problem: while the POMV is calculated using the full value of the Fund, themoney can only be taken from the ERA. The Legislature is legally prohibited from touching the principal, which means the full value of the Fund is theoretical when it comes to actual cash available.
This creates an imbalance that threatens the very sustainability the POMV system was designed to protect. Here’s why: realized gains from investments (like selling a stock at profit) flow into the ERA, where they become available to spend. But unrealized gains – paper increases in asset values – primarily remain in the principal. The problem is that most of the Fund’s growth has been in unrealized gains, which are locked away. Meanwhile, the Legislature continues to draw 5% of the average total fund value every year – but only from the ERA.
This means the ERA is being drawn down faster than in can be replenished. In years of market volatility or lower realized returns, this pressure becomes even more acute. And because the ERA is fully spendable with a simple majority vote, it’s vulnerable to political pressure. The temptation to overdraw is always there.
Merging the ERA with the principal into a single, constitutionally protected fund fixes this flaw. It doesn’t just simplify fund management; it changes how the Fund can be accessed. All earnings – realized and unrealized – would remain in the unified fund. The only way money could be withdrawn would be through a constitutional POMV draw.
This is not a minor shift. It would be the most significant fiscal reform in Alaska in a generation. It creates a hard cap on spending from the Fund, one tied directly to its performance and sustainability. No more treating realized gains as a checking account. Instead, the entire fund is protected, and spending from it is limited to what is sustainable over the long term.
In the end, this reform is about protecting the Fund, the PFD, and Alaska’s fiscal future. The Fund was created to turn a temporary resource boom into a permanent financial legacy. But that legacy only survives if we guard it against political pressure and short-term thinking.
This is more than a fiscal policy debate. It’s about protecting the Fund for future generations, ensuring the PFD survives, and building a system that supports long-term stability. Merging the accounts creates the discipline Alaska needs – and the legacy Alaskans deserve.
Angela Rodell of Juneau is a former executive director of the Alaska Permanent Fund.
In early Spring of 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev, then-president of the Soviet Socialist Republic, was awarded an honorary doctorate in humanities from the University of Alaska Southeast. Chancellor of UAS Marshall Lind invited Yuri Dubinin, then the Soviet ambassador to the US to accept this award on Gorbachev’s behalf.
Dubinin arrived at Juneau with an entourage of six Soviet officials. Back then, I was teaching Russian studies and archaeology at UAS and was assigned to accompany the Soviet delegation. In fact, Dubinin was the first Soviet ambassador to visit Alaska in the post-World War II era.
Dubinin became ambassador to the US in 1986 after serving a short stint as the Soviet envoy to the United Nations and he was the Soviet Union’s ambassador to the United States during much of the turbulent 1980s’ perestroika period. In his Washington embassy post, Dubinin described himself as a “popularizer of perestroika” — the radical reform efforts of the Soviet leader Gorbachev. Dubinin also oversaw opening the Russian embassy to news conferences under Gorbachev’s initiatives.
In Alaska, the mid-1980s through 1990s was an enthusiastic period of the Soviet/Russia–Alaska relationships in almost all cultural, educational, and governmental spheres. Yes, I was a busy person, translating almost daily for all involved in the Russia-Alaska affairs; the enrollment in my Russian language classes at UAS was over the limit, with a long waiting list. Indeed, it was a promising hope to end Cold War tensions and begin a new era of mutually productive and friendly relationship between two great nations.
Nevertheless, whether under Soviet/Russian leadership of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, or Putin, the US never stopped its Cold War policies of undermining USSR/Russia. In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter provided military and logistical support to the Afghan Mujahideen, the precursor to the Taliban, therefore, provoking Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
In fact, every successive US president continued covert and overt interference in countries on Russia’s southern borders, including former Soviet Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan.
The ideological architect of the strategy to contain the Soviet Union during Carter presidency was Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor and antagonist of the Soviet regime. Indeed, Ukraine played a pivotal role in the so-called Brzezinski Doctrine, which identifies it as the key to preventing Russian–European economic and political integration. Still today, the US foreign establishment is rife with Brzezinski proteges and anti-Russian Cold War ideology.
With Ukraine, because of Brzezinski’s anti-Russian ideology, the West made a major strategic bet that eventually failed. The crippling sanctions against Russia since 2014 should have cratered the Russian economy, resulting in a popular uprising and leading to the replacement of Vladimir Putin with a pro-Western leader.
As a result of this wishful dream and false expectation of this hostile strategy, another pro-Western globalist in the Kremlin would have been a boon for Wall Street, as Russia is the richest country in the world in terms of natural resources. With the growing importance and demands for natural resources, Russia represents a rich investment opportunity for the unforeseen future. In fact, the Western sanctions against Russia completely and undeniably failed—in 2024, European Union’s GDP grew 1.7 percent, while Russia’s GDP grew 4.2 percent.
Soon after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as early as 1993, President Bill Clinton started pushing for NATO expansion in Europe, including Ukraine, to which many strategically thinking American sociologists and historians strongly objected; and this is how the slippery road to the current crisis might escalate into potential nuclear WWIII.
After gaining its independence in 1991, Ukraine could expect a bright future. At that time, Ukraine (with exception of Russia) was the largest country (territory) in Europe, with a population of 52 million citizens, and sixth largest GDP in Europe. Having vital industrial and agricultural sectors, a favorable climate, and fertile land, the country needed effective anti-corruption reforms, a certain level of autonomy for the regions with large Russian ethnic populations, and, most importantly, neutral status with no membership in any military blocs to become one of the most prosperous European states within its 1991 borders.
Instead, billions from the US, Canada, other Western countries, and George Soros were poured into Ukraine; not to boost its economy but to reformat public opinion, which overwhelmingly favored neutral status and against joining NATO. This money and political influence from the West helped to instigate the regime change of “Orange” revolution in 2004 and then “Maidan” in 2014, which was directly coordinated by then-Vice President Joe Biden with Victoria Nuland from the White House in Ukrainian capital Kyiv.
The new Ukrainian government that Washington and West selected immediately declared its intention to join NATO. In fact, if not for this coup in Ukraine in 2014, there would be no annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia in 2014, today’s war in East Ukraine, and no risk of potential nuclear World War III.
In short, the US and Western policies of using Ukrainians as cannon fodder to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia denigrates and contradicts the fundamental spirit and soul of America itself. The country that claims its adherence to Western, or in broader terms Judeo-Christian, values provoked and keeps funding to prolong a war between two Christian nations that have lived together for over three centuries and are bound together by close historical, religious, economic, cultural, and family ties.
Currently, no one can predict how the Russian-Ukrainian/West war will end, but as the drums of World War III keep banging, those who are not among decision-makers or on the battlefields should at least try to clear the smog of this war.
Alexander Dolitsky was born and raised in Kiev in the former Soviet Union. He received an M.A. in history from Kiev Pedagogical Institute, Ukraine in 1976; an M.A. in anthropology and archaeology from Brown University in 1983; and enrolled in the Ph.D. program in anthropology at Bryn Mawr College from 1983 to 1985, where he was also lecturer in the Russian Center. In the USSR, he was a social studies teacher for three years and an archaeologist for five years for the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. In 1978, he settled in the United States. Dolitsky visited Alaska for the first time in 1981, while conducting field research for graduate school at Brown. He then settled first in Sitka in 1985 and then in Juneau in 1986. From 1985 to 1987, he was U.S. Forest Service archaeologist and social scientist. He was an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Alaska Southeast from 1985 to 1999; Social Studies Instructor at the Alyeska Central School, Alaska Department of Education and Yukon-Koyukuk School District from 1988 to 2006; and Director of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center from 1990 to 2022. From 2006 to 2010, Alexander Dolitsky served as a Delegate of the Russian Federation in the United States for the Russian Compatriots program. He has done 30 field studies in various areas of the former Soviet Union (including Siberia), Central Asia, South America, Eastern Europe and the United States (including Alaska). Dolitsky was a lecturer on the World Discoverer, Spirit of Oceanus, and Clipper Odyssey vessels in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic regions. He was a Project Manager for the WWII Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease Memorial, which was erected in Fairbanks in 2006. Dolitsky has published extensively in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. His more recent publications include Fairy Tales and Myths of the Bering Strait Chukchi, Ancient Tales of Kamchatka, Tales and Legends of the Yupik Eskimos of Siberia, Old Russia in Modern America: Living Traditions of the Russian Old Believers in Alaska, Allies in Wartime: The Alaska-Siberia Airway During World War II, Spirit of the Siberian Tiger: Folktales of the Russian Far East, Living Wisdom of the Russian Far East: Tales and Legends from Chukotka and Alaska, and Pipeline to Russia: The Alaska-Siberia Air Route in World War II.
Glenfarne, the company that has an agreement with the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation to move a gasline forward for Alaska, will not be needing the $50 million guarantee that the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority had offered.
That news was relayed in a House committee today by AGDC President Frank Richards.
Glenfarne, the new majority owner and lead developer of the Alaska LNG project, will proceed without the previously approved $50 million financial backstop, a development that takes that off the table as criticism of the project. Some critics had said that Glenfarne didn’t have enough skin in the game, if that guarantee was in place.
Glenfarne had inherited that $50 million backstop guarantee from an agreement with an earlier pipeline builder, a builder that was only interested in doing the narrower building portion of the project, which had a lot more financial risk associate with it.
Richards told the House Resources Committee that Glenfarne is going to seek private financing for the entire project and won’t need to be reimbursed for the front-end engineering and design portion if the project does not reach a final investment decision.
The Alaska LNG project has received all major federal permits, and may eventually deliver up to 3.3 billion cubic feet of gas per day, some for Alaska and some for export. With Glenfarne’s leadership and financial commitment, the project is moving quickly toward that prized “final investment decision.” That decision is expected later this year.
