What entities or companies were listed as responsible for utilities, fuel deliveries, and airport operations tied to epstein's islands?

1. What the newly released files show — and what they do not

The batch of photographs and walkthrough video released by House Democrats came from U.S. Virgin Islands authorities and gives a visual tour of Little St. James’s residences, pool and interior rooms; those materials were taken in 2020 and were shared to push for broader release of Epstein-related files ^{[7] [2]}. Coverage notes the images provide a “disturbing look” into the site but repeatedly states they reveal little new documentary evidence about who provided services such as utilities or fuel deliveries to the estate — those details are not visible in the photos and videos themselves ^{[8] [9]}.

2. Aviation links documented in prior reporting

Multiple outlets have long recorded Epstein’s pattern of flying into St. Thomas’s international airport, where his private plane would arrive and a helicopter would then transfer him and guests to Little St. James and Great St. James; U.S. reporting and flight logs back to 2002–2014 corroborate that modus operandi ^{[4] [10]}. Cyril E. King International Airport (STT) is the main St. Thomas hub cited in reporting about the islands’ access; local reports also reference a small airstrip/helipad logistics on the islands themselves, but the new image release does not include contracts or vendor names for airport operations ^{[5] [4]}.

3. No named utilities or fuel companies in the released tranche

The oversight committee’s initial public release contains interior and exterior imagery, a phone with redacted speed‑dial labels and a blackboard with redactions, but media summaries and the committee’s statements do not list utility providers, fuel vendors or firms running airport services for Epstein’s islands ^{[7] [11]}. Multiple outlets emphasize that what was released were photos and videos from the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Justice and portions of financial documents from banks, but they do not publish supplier lists for on‑island power, diesel, propane or aviation fueling companies ^{[12] [3]}.

4. What past investigations and court filings say about transport, not vendors

Civil suits and the U.S. Virgin Islands’ litigation against Epstein’s estate allege trafficking and describe helicopters as a regular means of moving people between St. Thomas and Little St. James; those filings identify modes of transport and items like helicopters and private jets, not the commercial companies that delivered fuel or ran local utilities ^{[13] [14]}. The New York Times’ earlier reporting similarly details flights into St. Thomas and helicopter transfers to the islands without naming specific fuel‑supply contractors ^[4].

5. Why vendor names might not appear in public materials yet

Committee releases and media reports indicate more files — including bank records from JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank and additional documents from the U.S. Virgin Islands — are under review and may be released later; those additional documents could contain invoices, contracts or logs with vendor names, but the materials made public so far have not ^{[12] [11] [3]}. Oversight Democrats say more files from the Virgin Islands will be released in coming days; until that happens, reporting is limited to imagery, flight‑log summaries and bank record disclosures noted by Congress ^[3].

6. How to interpret absence of supplier names in current reporting

The absence of publicly named utilities, fuel‑delivery or airport operations companies in these releases does not mean such entities did not serve Epstein’s islands; rather, available sources do not yet mention vendor identities in the tranche that has been released. Journalists and investigators continue to seek flight logs, bank records and procurement documents that could show who supplied fuel, power or airport services ^{[12] [3]}.

Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the documents and news coverage that have been publicly cited by the Oversight Committee and major outlets; if procurement invoices or third‑party contracts exist, they have not been published in the sources above and therefore are not identified here ^{[7] [12]}.