ICYMI: Sullivan Highlights his Bycatch Reduction Bill, Continued AK LNG Progress on KDLL Radio

WASHINGTON-U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) spoke with Ashlyn O'Hara recently on KDLL Kenai Public Radio about his Bycatch Reduction and Research Act legislation introduced last week to improve marine environmental data collection, enhance electronic fisheries monitoring and reporting, and advance gear and technology that reduce bycatch and protect marine seafloor habitat from contact with trawl fishing gear. The Senator and O'Hara also discussed continued progress on advancing the Alaska LNG project and the future of Venezuela in the aftermath of the removal of the dictator, Nicolás Maduro.

Below is a full transcript of Sen. Sullivan's interview with KDLL.

Introducing the Bycatch Reduction and Research Act

SULLIVAN: Well, listen, one thing that we just announced today was my - the Bycatch Reduction and Research Act with Senator Murkowski and Congressman Begich. This is legislation. It's building on my previous legislation, where-I legislate a lot in the area of fisheries, especially in the area of getting Alaskans back to what we all want. And on the Kenai, this is a huge issue, but it's a big issue throughout the entire state, and that is getting back to strong salmon runs on all our rivers. We have a pretty giant variability, and salmon runs, some have done really well and continue to do well. Bristol Bay sockeye, for example. By the way, the Kenai River had a very strong Sockeye run this year. But some of the big rivers and runs for kings and chums have been really challenged.

So a couple years ago, Ashlyn, I passed my Alaska Salmon Research Task Force Act, which was all about bringing the best minds in the state-state, federal, university, tribal-to address the big issue that everybody's focused on, which is, 'Why do we have this great variability? Why do we have some of these runs doing really well, some of these runs doing very poorly? What are the research gaps?' I brought together a world class group of Alaskans. I got this bill passed. It's not easy to get bills passed here in the Congress, but especially on issues that can be contentious, like fisheries. It was very focused on a number of things. It says, 'What is happening out in the big ocean to our salmon when they're out there for most of their lifetime? Is it bycatch? Is it issues relating to hatcheries? Is it issues relating to smolt mortality?' That bill, which was very widely supported throughout the state, we were building on that with our bycatch reduction bill, because that was one of the areas that we needed to focus on. What that bill is focused on, that we just introduced, is a few goals: strengthening the science to protect Alaska's fishermen, subsistence harvesters, sport fishermen and coastal communities to reduce bycatch and trawl gear impacts, both at the kind of mid-water level, but also the sea floor habitat level; and understand the changing environments. Increase the use of technology to reduce by catch and start to look at mandating the requirement of that, and increase the transparency and bycatch monitoring. There are some complaints that NOAA doesn't do a good enough job on that. And, very importantly, start the deployment of innovative fishing gear that reduces bycatch and bottom contact. If you saw our press release, there's a lot of widespread support, particularly on the Kenai. I will tell you, and this, by the way, this is something I-it's a great part of the job when you get good ideas from your fellow Alaskans. A lot of the ideas in this came from some fishermen on the Kenai. Captain Bob Candopoulos and I were out fishing. He's one of our great halibut charter captains, and got discussing these kinds of ideas, limiting, for example, how far nets can go down if they're not supposed to be even fishing on the bottom.

So this is an important piece of legislation. It builds on my Alaska Salmon Research Task Force Act, and it really builds on another area that I've been really focused on, and that's targeting foreign fleets, particularly the Russians and Chinese and their trawl fleets that have no environmental standards, that ravage the ocean and that undertake what's called IUU fishing. So I have made a very strong point-my bill, the FISH Act, which passed the Senate this past year. That's all about going after the Chinese and Russians and their IUU fishing. I've even had, believe it or not, we were selling this kind of fish in American military bases and commissaries. I just had a bill that passed that said, you can't do that. Why the heck would we be selling Chinese communist fish to American soldiers? Let's make sure they get freedom fish from Alaska. Then, you and I have talked about this, we've been really focused on making sure the trawl fleet from Russia and China can't even import their fish into America. I worked really closely with the Biden administration and now the Trump administration to extend an executive order ban that doesn't allow any of that fish to come into the entire United States of America. When they kind of used the loophole to send it through China, I got an executive order to ban that loophole with the Chinese working with the Russians to bring their trawl fish. So we've been working on this issue for years. This is just the next step, and we think it's an important one that Alaskans will support.

O'HARA: I know that you're a frequent attendee of the Kenai River Sport Fishing Association roundtable that happens here in Soldotna every year. I know you're well aware of the way dwindling Chinook runs especially are impacting Kenai Peninsula fisheries - whether that's sport guides, commercial fishermen, subsistence users, etc. Can you be a little bit more specific about - how much money are we talking about here and how are folks who are fishing on the Kenai going to see the tangible benefits of this legislation in their day-to-day work?

SULLIVAN: I mean, one thing-if you look at the press release that we're proud of, Shannon Martin, who's the executive director of KRSA, was one of the people putting a strong statement out on why this bill will enhance KRSA's mission, which is the long-term sustainability of the Kenai River and the salmon stocks there. None of these issues are a panacea in terms of immediate impact. One of the most important things that this bill is going to be doing is not only the funding and the transparency, but the pressing on innovation to reduce bycatch. Then, moving forward, to get commercial trawlers to adopt that type of gear. Charter boat captains have gear that they're mandated to use that prevents the harvesting of certain species-when it happens, how you bring them back down, in terms of gear that is mandated. So, we think that having the federal government financially support this kind of technological innovation and make sure that there's transparency. I will tell you, some people think that the NOAA reporting that is part of the bycatch reporting is suspect. So what we've tried to do here is reconstitute my Alaska Salmon Research Task Force Act and put experts on it who have a strong interest in making sure that bottom-contact trawling and other halibut and crab experts, who get very negatively impacted by some of those kind of trawl operations, are actually on this task force. So we think that's another element. But it really builds on the good work we've done on the deep research, and the research gaps that we found in terms of salmon and what's happening with salmon. One of the things that came out of my first bill was a deep-dive on bycatch, and that's what we're doing.

Continued Progress on the Alaska LNG Project

O'HARA: Pivoting slightly, but sticking with resource development: The last that I'd heard from your office regarding the Alaska LNG Project was earlier in the summer. You'd mentioned that you were kind of shopping it around the Pentagon to see if there was any interest in federal capital investment. What were the results of those conversations? Did anything come of those talks?

SULLIVAN: I would say, in terms of the Alaska LNG Project, since we talked last summer, we've seen really significant progress. Now, I fully understand when people are going to roll their eyes and say, 'Oh, come on, Dan. We've been hearing that for 50 years.' I get the skepticism, but when you see the progress that Glenfarne has gotten in terms of letters of intent, but also what are called heads of agreement-that's the next step in terms of a commitment to buy gas. When you look at the partnership agreements that they've signed with a number of different off-takers from Japan, from Korea, from Thailand, from Taiwan; and when you look at how much the President and his team have been pushing this project-you couldn't have a starker contrast between the Biden administration that was all about shutting down resource development, particularly oil and gas in Alaska, John Kerry, the climate czar, literally going overseas to Japan and Korea, telling them not to buy Alaska LNG, to having the President and his team encouraging countries to do that. I've been doing that as well, with the Koreans, with the Japanese, particularly with the Taiwanese. I think we're seeing some really important progress. Glenfarne is almost done-I'm meeting with the leadership of that company tomorrow-with their FEED (front-end engineering and design) work on the project.

But in terms of the federal government, we were able to get in the budget reconciliation bill a brand new Energy Dominance Financing Program at the Department of Energy. This is a big financing program that's all about American government investment and loans in large-scale transformative energy infrastructure projects. Well, guess who's number one on their list that they are negotiating with as we speak? That's the Department of Energy negotiating with this new authority and new fund that we got into law with the Glenfarne Alaska LNG Project. DOE is definitely working it, Ashlyn. It's a very good question. Lately, we have been pressing this idea, not only of DOD having off-take agreements to essentially help heat the bases. By the way, as Alaskans know, in Interior Alaska, it has gotten really cold. Eielson and Ft. Greeley are approaching 50 below zero temperatures. They need steady supplies of gas. But we are looking at this big move now to start having federal data centers located on military bases throughout the country. My team and I have been starting to work with DoD on that concept, too. That's a great idea that the administration is pursuing: data centers for our military on military bases. Well, guess where would be a great place to do that? It would be in Alaska.

That discussion you and I had on the DOD side is still ongoing, but I will tell you, where we've made the most progress with the federal government in terms of financing our project is in the aftermath of the budget reconciliation bill and the provision that I personally negotiated to get this energy financing program up and running with the Department of Energy. This builds on the provision Sen. Murkowski and I got in the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which was for loan guarantees for this project. This project has federal loan guarantees that were indexed to inflation, fortunately. It's the only project in America that's backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

So, a lot of progress right now, I think it's an exciting time, certainly for the Kenai because the LNG facility will be built there. But, as I always mentioned to the naysayers-and I get why people are naysayers-but the reason, Ashlyn, I've been putting my shoulder into this for years and years and years is, I always say to the people who are kind of like, 'Oh, what a waste of time. It's not going to happen.' Well, what's the alternative? What's the alternative? Unfortunately, we're starting to run out of Cook Inlet gas. The alternative, longer term, when you ask people, it's, 'Well, we'll probably have to import gas from Mexico or Canada.' Count me out on that one. I think we need to solve Alaska's energy problem with Alaskan energy. Here's the final thing. If we have long supplies for 50 to 100 years of clean burning, low-cost Alaska gas running through our state, run into the Kenai Peninsula, there's nothing we can't do. Our future is going to be so bright. The jobs just to build this thing are in the 15 to 20,000 worker range. But to me, it's an exciting time, and since you and I've talked, the progress has been accelerated. I talked to the President of the United States about this two weeks ago in the Oval Office. His team is still really focused on it. That is another reason that we've seen all this progress. I'm hopeful we'll have a final investment decision sometime in 2026, and I'm meeting with the Glenfarne guys tomorrow and the Secretary of Energy tomorrow, and trust me, I'm going to continue to press this really important project.

O'HARA: Building off of something that you just said, it sounds like you are not supportive of natural gas imports at this time-and please correct me if I'm wrong on that. When I talk to our local leaders on the Kenai-I'm thinking of Sen. (Jesse) Bjorkman and Borough Mayor Peter Micciche-it does seem that there's interest in, even in the short-term, importing resources to meet Southcentral's current energy needs while the Alaska LNG project is coming online. I just want to make sure-did I understand you correctly on that? Where do you stand on natural gas imports?

SULLIVAN: No, Ashlyn, look, by the way - and I don't do this with all reporters-you're very insightful, and you always do your homework. Great question. I've had discussions with former senator, now-Mayor Peter Micciche, who's a very good buddy of mine, and very knowledgeable about these issues. As you know, he ran the export plant on the Kenai-and Sen. Bjorkman as well. So, let me clarify. If there's the need, and maybe there is, for short-term imports to meet Southcentral demands, of course we have to do that. The Alaska LNG Project and proposal actually contemplates that as a potential as we wait, and hopefully not too long, for the full gasline to be up and running. Then the import terminal that they envision being built to enhance the Conoco facility could then be switched to an export facility. So, having that flexibility for short-term imports, I do support. I hope we don't need them for long, if at all. But where I have expressed concern with everybody is that, if you get to that point, what you don't want to do is lose momentum. People say, 'Hey, well, we've kind of solved our Southcentral energy problem with this Mexican gas. Let's just take our foot off the pedal and don't worry about the big gasline anymore.' I think that would be a huge mistake. So, short-term imports to meet our needs? Yes. Imports as the long-term solution to declining LNG from Cook Inlet? No.

O'HARA: OK, and then one more thing on Alaska LNG, because I did also want to ask you about Venezuela. As you probably know, Glenfarne did hold a town hall meeting out in Nikiski to talk about project progress. When I talked to a lot of the attendees there, the general sentiment-and this is my characterization-was that people are excited about the progress on this project. They love the idea of the revenue that could come from property taxes, the jobs, what it could mean for our area. But there does seem to be a lot of skepticism about where you get that $44 billion on the upfront to actually pay for it. So, just returning to that idea of capital, do you support any money from the federal government at all right now going to pay for that initial upfront cost?

SULLIVAN: Not only do I support it, I helped write a provision in the budget reconciliation bill that gives the Department of Energy a financing facility that can help with financing the projects. Now, is that in loans? Is that in loan guarantees? Is that in grants? That's kind of the work that they're doing right now. But, not only do I support it, I helped write it. Sometimes you need that upfront boost on a capital project of this size. But I also think that once this is up and running, and we get secure offtake agreements from particularly foreign buyers, or, like you said, maybe data centers or other domestic Alaska purchasers, I think the ability to have private sector financing of this project over the long term is going to significantly increase. But, you're raising another good point, Ashlyn. That first money that gets a big project off the ground like this is often the most difficult to finance, which is why we wrote this provision that's now up and running for the Department of Energy, and Glenfarne has been in numerous discussions with them over the last several weeks on utilizing that very-we call it the Energy Dominance Financing facility-to do exactly what you're talking about. Yes, I support a federal government financing assistance upfront. The budget reconciliation bill, what we're now calling the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, has a very provision that I helped craft, including in discussions with the secretary of energy when we were writing this bill. Now they're looking to implement it. So, absolutely, these are all the different tools that I think can help get this project off the ground. We're not there yet, but I'm glad that you saw the enthusiasm. In my discussions with Alaskans, there's still skepticism, and that's warranted. We've been talking about this project for half a century. However, I do think a lot of people are starting to see, my goodness, this is a huge opportunity. If we can pull this off, it is going to be very, very exciting. That is a really long way to answer your question by saying, yes.

Impact of Venezuela on Global Oil Markets

O'HARA: I know we're nearing the end of our time, and I would like to talk about, of course, the big news of the week. Sticking with the topic of oil, how does the US' plan to intervene in Venezuela's oil market, do you think, impact oil and gas markets up here in Alaska?

SULLIVAN: I think it's another really important question. I had a top secret briefing with Secretary (Marco) Rubio, Secretary (Pete) Hegseth, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs (of Staff), and the CIA director today about the next steps that they are looking at in Venezuela. They're looking at that in kind of three phases. One is the stabilization. They don't want chaos. They don't want economic collapse. They don't want mass migration, which is why-and I think that's smart-which is why they are taking the approach that they have. The second is to have an economic recovery phase, and that would be focused on the economy, but [also] kicking out our adversaries. Let's face it, Venezuela has been a-I'm not sure cesspool is the right word, but-a convening place of America's adversaries. The Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, heck, even Hezbollah. So, to have an economy that has a much more Western Hemisphere focus, which would include a reconstitution of their oil and gas sector, I think would be important. Then, finally, the third phase is a transition to conduct free and fair elections, and perhaps install the real winner of the 2022 election there-which was not (Nicolás) Maduro. So, anyways, that's the broad plan laid out.

To your specific question, Venezuelan oil has been subject to sanctions. They are really going to be leveraged in terms of their ability to work with us by our ability to block their export of oil, particularly to countries like China and Russia. That's ongoing, but Venezuela has previously had output at about two and a half million barrels a day before Chavez and Maduro essentially nationalized the oil industry. They kicked out pretty much all the Western companies, with the exception of Chevron. The capital investment and the production there dramatically declined. It's less than a million barrels a day. So, longer term, could that impact the price of oil? Yes, but I think right now, the ability to do capital investments and get them back to those much more significant production numbers, I don't think that's going to happen in the short term, and I don't think you're going to have a capital flight from Alaska to go invest in Venezuela. Here's the other reason why. Venezuela is still very unstable. Capital investment likes stability. There is not political stability in Venezuela, and I don't anticipate it being a politically stable place anytime soon. The idea that there's a huge flush of capital investment there that's going to create very significant increases in production after the socialists, Maduro and Chavez, essentially ruined their industry. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, and I think the impact on Alaska is going to be minimal.

# # #