Expert: Glenfarne’s Alaska LNG push shows early momentum but may lack FID‑level definition; financing and risk allocation remain unclear

Andrew Duncan, senior project advisor with Gaffney & Klein (Singapore office), told the Alaska Senate Resources Committee on Jan. 26 that Glenfarne’s public actions show momentum but, based on public‑domain materials, the program appears closer to a Class 5/early Class 4 level of engineering definition — short of the Class 3 level commonly associated with a definitive FID.

Duncan described FID as a stage‑gate process that can be either a single contractual decision or a progressive sequence, and he said the most critical elements that must be covered before a definitive FID include: class‑3 level cost estimates, a financing package or guarantees that clarify who bears cost‑overrun risk, the legal/fiscal/regulatory framework (including any fiscal‑stability provisions), and robust stakeholder management.

"They are probably between DG2 and DG3," Duncan said of Glenfarne's current program placement, referring to stage‑gate nomenclature he used in his slides. He added that Glenfarne’s preparatory work—pipeline routing, right‑of‑way, permitting and preliminary supplier arrangements—could justify early notices to proceed for limited preparatory activities (site works, camps, long‑lead items) if the work is contributory to a final scope and includes safeguards such as cancellation clauses.

Committee members asked specifically whether the public statements that pipe‑laying could begin in December were realistic. Duncan said conditional early works and supplier engagements are prudent but that a detailed readiness and cost‑definition review would be required to confirm any specific construction start dates.

The committee also probed financing disclosure. Duncan said a credible FID should clarify how the project will be funded and whether funds or guarantees are committed. He noted that financing can be private and confidential, and that legislatures can receive necessary assurance through controlled disclosure—non‑disclosure agreements, intermediary reviewers (consultants or law firms), or other mechanisms—without compromising commercially sensitive information.

Why it matters: Accepting a near‑term FID on a project lacking comprehensive Class‑3 cost definition risks large cost and schedule overruns and could leave state agencies, municipalities, or taxpayers exposed depending on how risk is allocated. Duncan and senators repeatedly emphasized contingency, permit renewal risk, conditional awards and the need for clear allocation of who carries overruns.

Duncan recommended the committee pursue a structured readiness review if an imminent FID is signaled and seek clarity on financing sources and risk allocation as a precondition for legislative consideration of any fiscal accommodations or guarantees.

"At final investment decision, it should be clear how the project is going to be funded and the project risk and allocation of risk should also be addressed," Duncan told the committee.

The committee adjourned after thanking the presenters and scheduled follow‑up briefings on pipeline impacts and a second presentation on SB180 if time allows.

Sources: Remarks by Andrew Duncan (Gaffney & Klein) to the Alaska Senate Resources Committee, Jan. 26, 2026.