Russian Energy Giant Secretly Funded, Controlled $25B Alaska Gas Venture

Russia’s Novatek secretly financed and directed a proposed $25 billion gas export project in Alaska, its former chief executive alleges, exposing sanctions concerns around a venture discussed by Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump’s envoys.

Joel Riddle, who left Polar Train LNG in September, told the Financial Times and The New York Times that he discovered Russian funding behind an enterprise he had understood was backed by other investors.

Several senior executives subsequently departed.

The proposal featured in Putin’s discussions last month with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, according to people familiar with the negotiations cited by the Times.

Energy deals have formed part of Washington’s efforts to reach an agreement with Moscow over the war in Ukraine.

Financing Behind the Venture

Polar LNG plans to use Novatek equipment to liquefy gas from Alaska’s North Slope for shipment to Asian customers.

Launched in March, the venture sought Treasury permission to negotiate with the Russian group but had not received approval.

Riddle, a former ExxonMobil engineer, said he initially believed financing came from Trump-linked investor Gentry Beach and Abu Dhabi-based Tech Wave Industrial Projects Management.

He later concluded that Beach had not invested and Novatek was supplying capital.

“I resigned as chief executive of Polar LNG because I felt uncomfortable that the Russian company Novatek was financing and ultimately controlling the strategic direction of the company,” Riddle told the FT.

Messages reviewed by the newspapers show senior Novatek executives discussing funding.

According to the Times, those exchanges covered providing Tech Wave with as much as $15 million to finance Polar LNG, including an anticipated initial $5 million transfer.

Novatek told the Times it was pursuing a minority shareholding in the project.

That prospective stake is separate from Riddle’s allegation that the Russian group already exercised control through financing.

Tech Wave said Novatek held no ownership interest in its business. It said Bjørn Gundersen, a former Novatek executive involved in the venture, had supplied personal and borrowed funds.

Departures and Sanctions Concerns

Riddle resigned on September 19. Other departures included chief financial officer Dan Chandra and executive vice president Jim Smith.

Legal advice prepared by Baker Botts warned that U.S. officials saw possible Russia-related sanctions risks in the project’s connections. One concern involved an investor whom officials believed might be acting for Novatek.

Departing executives alerted administration officials and sought an investigation, according to the Times.

Polar LNG disputed Riddle’s account of his departure, describing him as disgruntled and saying he had been dismissed for cause.

Documents reviewed by the Times show his resignation preceded the company’s termination letter by six days.

“Development activities are being pursued in full compliance with applicable US laws,” Polar LNG said.

The company named Tim Talkington, formerly head of Goldman Sachs’ Russia operation, acting chief executive.

It said Tech Wave had financed preliminary work and that it was seeking American investors.

Russian Technology, U.S. Approvals

The project would acquire a 640,000-ton seabed platform from Novatek and install gas liquefaction equipment off Alaska’s northern coast near Milne Point.

Novatek uses similar technology at Arctic LNG 2, which Washington sanctioned in 2023.

People familiar with diplomatic discussions told the FT that sanctions relief for that facility had been considered in exchange for Novatek’s contribution in Alaska.

Novatek denied that access to its technology depended on lifting Arctic LNG 2 sanctions.

It described the Alaska proposal as an independent project requiring authorization from both governments.

Polar LNG still needs Treasury clearance to acquire the Russian equipment and federal approval to build an export facility.

Internal documents also identify shallow waters, potential disruption to Indigenous whaling, and local opposition as obstacles.

The venture would compete with a separate $50 billion Alaska pipeline project already supported by the Trump administration.