Posted on 02/01/2010 9:31:23 AM PST by Al B.
ConocoPhillips reports much higher profits in Alaska compared to rest of the country
Alaska's big three oil producers and their allies are seeking tax cuts they say will make additional drilling in Alaska more profitable to the companies and could encourage more investment in the state's oil fields.
The companies have said high taxes are driving away investment, but they may be doing better in Alaska than they're letting on, however.
ConocoPhillips Co. data for 2009 released last week revealed that the company was highly profitable in Alaska but lost money elsewhere in the country.
ConocoPhillips' Securities and Exchange Commission filings are unusual among the state's oil producers because they provide specifics about Alaska operations. The state's other two major oil producers, BP and ExxonMobil Corp. haven't filed details about their Alaska operations.
For 2009, ConocoPhillips reported profits of $1.54 billion for its Alaska exploration and production operations, compared to a loss of $37 million for those operations elsewhere in the nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at juneauempire.com ...
ping
LOL, add Palin to the title to get attention. Better yet added, “Palin ... taxes” ... LOL
Oh, criminy. You know, these threads are getting tiresome to the point of being ridiculous. Why don’t ya’ll give up already? Sounds like Obama saying ‘Bush-era deficits’. Blah, blah, blah...
No surprise. The rest of the US includes refinery operations which took a far worse beating in 2009.
Governor Palin made a good deal for Alaska and the oil company made money too.
Now her successor, Gov. Sean Parnell is introducing his own plan to try to reduce the tax by 5 percent which sounds good, but of course most of the democrats want an increase. Can’t have profits, ya know.
Of course, you know this quite well due to your background. I was stationed there all through the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. Some of the Well Pads we drilled have over 70 wells on them. Directional technology has also opened new production at Milne Point, etc, which has increased efficiency dramatically.
It also helps that the infrastructure to move the oil volume to market cheaply, quickly and efficiently is in place. Alaska's development should be the definition for the industry of how oil should be produced.
Some would debate the “good deal”.
The engineering department I was running in Alaska is now about 1/3 its size from 2.5 years ago.
Many planned projects and investment were shut down before the major expenses were incurred. Other projects already in progress were scaled back or slowed down where reasonable.
I’m sorry to hear that. Maybe that’s one reason for the profit.
I suspect it is.
Oil companies have to keep spending just to break even on production rates.
More oil has to be found or enhance existing fields to keep up with the decline from existing.
The first year you cut back, you don’t lose a lot of production.
But the decline in flow rate begins to increase.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.