Can anyone in this State Government define a requirement in a contract that is understandable by all parties and have the courage to enforce that requirement?  This reads remarkably like the blundering in the AGIA agreement where the State could not clearly define when AGIA was not viable nor what the penalty for default would be. That omission forced us to prolong the expense up to the final buyout of TransCanda to avoid litigation.

If this development plan, including the disposition of the gas,  is a contractual obligation than the producers are obligated to meet it; however, if they haven't met that contractual obligation in past years past, why haven't they and who will be held responsible? 
That said, if this plan as now defined is not a legal requirement than it is simply a fishing expedition to pick a fight and may become known as "ALEA" (Alaska Lawyer Employment Act).