Kielak LNG urges state help for Point Thompson floating‑LNG plan, highlights year‑round shipping potential

Juneau — Kielak LNG executives presented a feasibility update Wednesday to the Alaska Senate Resources Committee on a proposal to build a nearshore, gravity‑based liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility off Point Thompson and ship product directly to Asian and Pacific markets.

The company described a 4 million tons per year project tied to roughly 560 million cubic feet per day of gas production from the North Slope, with a short export pipeline of about 6–9 miles and a capital cost estimate in the $4 billion to $5 billion range. Mead Treadwell, chairman and CEO of Kielak LNG, told the committee, “we should not put all our eggs in one basket,” urging consideration of direct export options alongside pipeline proposals.

Kielak’s COO, David Clark, said North Slope gas volumes are large enough to support multiple projects and that Point Thompson’s reservoir “has plenty of gas for more than one project.” He described the company’s concept as a shipyard‑built gravity base structure that would be floated to location and ballasted to the seabed; the hull would include storage and a dock for weekly cargo loadings. Treadwell and Clark said ice‑capable ARC7‑class tankers used on Russia’s Yamal project demonstrate the ability to navigate Arctic waters and, in committee remarks, Treadwell said, “These ships can operate 12 months a year.”

Why it matters: Kielak framed the plan as a lower‑risk, shorter‑pipeline alternative to onshore projects, and said it could both export to Asia and help supply Alaska communities and the Railbelt in emergency or contracted arrangements. The company asked state agencies to help derisk permitting and study in‑state delivery options so Alaska can be considered by buyers in Asia.

Key details and timeline: Kielak estimated a per‑ton capital cost of roughly $1,000–$1,250 (placing the project near global competitive benchmarks) and said the company’s internal schedule targets a first LNG cargo in January 2033 if the permitting and feasibility work proceed on plan. The company said it expects to collect market data and environmental permitting information this year and to pursue Department of Energy export approvals and federal permitting clarity for offshore facilities.

Permitting, federal and state asks: Treadwell asked the legislature to authorize or support feasibility work that would (1) clarify federal permitting for a nearshore/float‑down facility (including MARAD/BOEM jurisdictional questions), (2) support DOE export license work and (3) fund or authorize an updated Alaska Energy Authority study on gas to Alaskans to examine supply options, Jones Act waiver questions, and logistics for in‑state deliveries. He said the company has discussed shipyard options with Hanwha and other builders and would seek Alaska partnership on feasibility elements focused on state use of gas.

Environmental and market claims: Kielak told the committee buyers and investors are seeking low‑carbon‑intensity LNG. Clark said conventional North Slope gas yields lower fugitive emissions compared with some shale‑derived LNG and that the project plans to sequester CO2 removed during processing and employ wildlife‑protection mitigation measures in transit corridors such as the Bering Strait. The presenters cited a Norway/Trondheim research finding (as described to the committee) that Arctic production efficiencies can compare favorably with other global sources, and they signaled interest in emerging carbon‑management technologies.

Questions and caveats from senators: Committee members pressed the presenters on comparative costs and on whether Russian projects had government subsidies; Treadwell said he would follow up with details. Senators asked whether nearshore floating facilities have operated successfully in the Arctic; the presenters said several nearshore projects have been installed but noted recent operational challenges for some Russian nearshore projects stemming from a shortfall of ice‑class ships rather than a technical failure of the facilities.

Next steps: Kielak asked for state participation in feasibility work and study funding. The company said it has non‑disclosure agreements with multiple prospective buyers and is seeking offtake commitments while it completes permitting data and design work.

Ending: Committee chair Senator Giesel thanked the presenters and said the committee would consider the information as it continues work on broader Alaska gas issues and potential state studies.