Three days after two major newspapers aired a former chief executive’s allegation that Russia’s Novatek was secretly bankrolling Polar LNG, the Alaska gas story has more loose ends than settled facts. The Polar LNG questions below are ones the Financial Times and New York Times reporting raises but does not resolve, each set beside what is on the record and who could clear it up.
Where it stands: On Oct. 26, Polar LNG’s Oct. 23 statement was still its latest word, and it lists a license application as pending at Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. As Business Standard put it, “No US authority has publicly established that the alleged financing constituted a sanctions violation.”
Every claim of hidden Russian control here is Joel Riddle’s, as the two papers reported it, and each company contests it. Polar LNG says “Development activities are being pursued in full compliance with applicable US laws” and calls Riddle a fired, “disgruntled former employee.” Novatek denies secret control and says “requisite approvals will need to be obtained from US and Russian authorities.” Tech Wave says Novatek owns no part of it, Newsmax reported from the FT.
Money and ownership
1. How much money, if any, actually moved from Novatek?
Known: The Times reported texts in which Novatek’s Denis Solovyov and Leonid Mikhelson talked about sending up to $15 million to Tech Wave, the Abu Dhabi firm the Times describes as Polar LNG’s parent. One message to Riddle read: “The first 5 million were supposed to arrive by today,” Raw Story reported. The FT cited WhatsApp messages about efforts to “expedite the money transfer process.”
Unknown: Whether any of it landed, and from whose account. What the coverage reviewed here describes is money under discussion, not a documented payment. Who could answer: Tech Wave, Novatek, and Treasury if it opens an inquiry.
2. Who owns Tech Wave?
Known: Polar LNG’s Oct. 23 statement says “TechWave has provided financing to Polar LNG.” In its comments to the FT, Tech Wave denied any Novatek ownership and said Bjorn Gundersen, who once worked for Novatek, had put his own and borrowed money into the Alaska venture. Unknown: Tech Wave’s full list of owners, which no outlet reviewed here has published. Who could answer: Tech Wave itself. More in our Tech Wave ownership report.
3. Will Novatek become a shareholder?
Known: Novatek has told the Times it intends to take “minority shareholder” status in the project. Unknown: How large a stake, at what price, and whether a U.S. license would be sought for it. Who could answer: Novatek, Polar LNG and OFAC.
4. How big is the project really?
Known: In its write-up of the FT story, Business Standard labeled it a $25 billion project. At launch, Polar LNG told Reuters its first phase would cost $8 billion to $9 billion and said “one or two more phases” could cost about the same. Unknown: How the $25 billion total was calculated. Who could answer: the company.
Polar LNG questions for Washington
5. Where does the OFAC license stand?
Known: The company says its application covers the purchase of “an unfinished GBS,” a gravity-based plant structure, from Novatek. Separately, the FT said Polar LNG had asked to be allowed to negotiate with Novatek and was still waiting. Treasury’s only public line is that it won’t discuss specific allegations. The State Department records Novatek’s 2014 placement on a Treasury sectoral sanctions list. Unknown: The filing date, and whether OFAC has sent follow-up questions. Who could answer: OFAC. Our license explainer walks through the process.
6. Did the Energy Department act on the warning?
Known: By Riddle’s account, he and two colleagues who also left alerted Trump officials and pressed for a probe. The Times, in a passage reproduced by Reporting From Alaska, said: “The Energy Department, where the warning was sent, did not respond when asked about the matter.” Unknown: Who got the warning and whether it went on to Treasury. Who could answer: the Energy Department; congressional committees could also ask. See our piece on who could investigate.
7. What did the White House know, and when?
Known: An unnamed White House official gave the FT this answer: “This has only been broadly and briefly mentioned to the [administration] but no granular discussions have occurred.” The Times reported “no indication” that the envoys Witkoff and Kushner were aware of Polar LNG or its Novatek links. Unknown: Whether anyone at the White House saw Riddle’s warning. Who could answer: the White House, which, as tracked in our report on the administration’s responses, has spoken only through unnamed officials.
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
8. Was a sanctions swap ever proposed formally?
Known: The FT’s sources on the U.S.-Russia talks described an idea that paired Novatek’s help on the Alaska facility with sanctions relief for Arctic LNG 2. Novatek says its role was never contingent on sanctions coming off and calls the Alaska plan a separate project. Unknown: Whether either side ever put the idea on paper or formally offered it. Who could answer: the negotiators.
People and disputes
9. Did Riddle quit, or was he fired, and will anyone sue?
Known: Polar LNG’s position is that Riddle was dismissed for cause, and its statement adds: “The company is investigating claims concerning Riddle that may result in litigation.” The Times said documents show he resigned six days before the termination letter went out. The FT put the resignation on Sept. 19, The Deep Dive reported. Unknown: What “cause” the company means. Who could answer: a court, if a case is filed; none had been reported by Oct. 26. Riddle’s side is in our account of his claims.
10. What was Gentry Beach’s role?
Known: Riddle says he later found out that Beach, a friend of Donald Trump Jr., never invested. Novatek told the Times that Beach was not involved when it discussed taking a stake. The Deep Dive alone reported a further Novatek claim, that Beach had once served as an officer of Polar Eagle LNG, the parent listed on Polar LNG’s leadership page, but was no longer associated with it. Trump Jr.’s spokesman said the pair are no longer close. No source reviewed reports any stake in Polar LNG held by Trump or his family. Who could answer: Beach.
The open questions at a glance
| Question | On record so far | Who could answer |
|---|---|---|
| Money moved? | Up to $15M discussed in texts | Tech Wave, Novatek |
| Tech Wave owners? | Says Novatek owns none | Tech Wave |
| Novatek stake? | Seeks minority stake | Novatek, OFAC |
| Project cost? | $25B (FT) vs. $8-9B phase one | Polar LNG |
| OFAC license? | Application filed | OFAC |
| Energy Dept. warning? | No reply to NYT | Energy Dept. |
| White House knowledge? | “Broadly and briefly” | White House |
| Sanctions swap? | FT sources; Novatek denies | Negotiators |
| Fired or resigned? | Disputed | Courts, if sued |
| Beach’s role? | Not an investor, per Riddle | Beach |
One more gap sits at the top of the company: Polar LNG says “The appointment of a new CEO will be announced in due course,” and as of Oct. 26 no name had been given.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Novatek actually send money to Polar LNG?
Nobody has shown that publicly. The Times described texts about sending up to $15 million to the parent, Tech Wave, and Polar LNG credits Tech Wave with its funding. None of the coverage we reviewed confirmed a Novatek transfer, and the three companies reject the claim that Novatek runs the venture.
Has OFAC approved Polar LNG’s license?
No approval is on the public record. Polar LNG says its request covers buying a partly built Novatek plant base. Treasury does not discuss individual cases, and through October 26 no ruling had surfaced.
Is Polar LNG suing Joel Riddle?
Not yet. The company says its inquiry into claims about Riddle could end in litigation. Through October 26, no suit had been reported.
Did Witkoff and Kushner know about the Novatek funding?
According to the Times, nothing suggests the two envoys knew of Polar LNG or its link to Novatek, though the deal’s outline did come up with Putin. An unnamed U.S. official called the discussion general, not detailed.
Why do reports say $25 billion when Polar LNG says $8-9 billion?
The $25 billion figure comes from Business Standard’s account of the FT. In April the company quoted Reuters $8 billion to $9 billion as the cost of phase one and said up to two more phases might cost about as much each. None of the reports we read explained how the larger number was reached.
Sources
- Whistleblower CEO quits over hidden Russian cash behind gas deal in Trump peace talks: NYT — Raw Story, October 24, 2026
- Former CEO: Russian Firm Backed Alaska Gas Venture — Newsmax (via Yahoo News), October 24, 2026
- Former CEO Disputes Publicly Announced Trump Ally’s Investment in Alaska LNG Venture — The Deep Dive, October 24, 2026
- Polar LNG Announces Leadership Change and Outlines Vision for Alaska North Slope Development — Polar LNG (company statement), October 23, 2026
- Leadership — Polar LNG (company website), accessed October 26, 2026
- Russia secretly backed Alaska LNG shipping scheme — Reporting From Alaska (quoting the New York Times), October 25, 2026
- Top executives quit $25 bn US gas project over alleged Russian control — Business Standard, October 25, 2026
- Planned LNG plant in Alaska seeks equipment from sanctioned Russia firm — Reuters (via Eye on the Arctic), April 1, 2026
- Taking Additional Sweeping Measures Against Russia — U.S. Department of State, November 2, 2023
This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.