On private land, in states that are interested in growing jobs, not so much.
Posted on 02/14/2012 8:04:17 AM PST by thackney
Gov. Sean Parnell’s goal of nearly doubling the flow of oil through the trans-Alaska pipeline could be achieved over the next 10 to 15 years — but not without major fiscal and policy changes, a consultant said.
Pedro van Meurs, an oil and gas consultant, told a joint hearing of the Senate Resources and Finance committees that Parnell’s tax-cut bill “does not even come close” to going far enough to hit the Republican governor’s goal of 1 million barrels a day. He said “more elaborate” legislation is needed if Alaska wants significant increases in production.
Reaching Parnell’s goal includes new production in legacy fields and drilling in the Arctic and federally controlled Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Artic isn’t yet online and the refuge is currently off limits. But Van Meurs told senators he believes the goal can be reached with state resources alone, if changes are made.
...
Supporters, including the oil industry, have called a tax cut necessary to boost investment and reverse the trend of declining production.
(Excerpt) Read more at fuelfix.com ...
Restoring oil flow requires huge investment, consultant says
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/13/2316100/advisor-restoring-oil-flow-a-huge.html#storylink=cpy
excerpted:
About 600,000 barrels currently flow through the pipeline. Parnell wants to reach his target within a decade.
Increased production considered vital to Alaska’s financial future. About 90 percent of the state’s unrestricted revenue comes from oil taxes.
Van Meurs, a consultant to the Legislature, said the changes he’s proposing — which he plans to lay out over two days of hearings — would lead to $7.5 billion in additional investment. Part of his plan calls for the state to define competitive, fixed fiscal terms for its oil and gas resources, such as new and existing light oil, heavy and ultra-heavy oil, natural gas and shale oil.
He also calls for offering fiscal stability for large new projects.
Van Meurs said it would be difficult to introduce the changes he’s proposing in what he called a somewhat unfavorable political climate in Alaska.
...
In his calculations, van Meurs said he was not taking into consideration plans for Arctic offshore development, in particular by Shell. Under current federal law, the state doesn’t reap taxes from oil produced miles offshore in federal waters.
SHHHHHH!
Announce it AFTER the fact, least the ghestapo get wind of it and STOP YOU!
Obama does NOT WANT more energy in the lower 48!!!
He will now stop you!
On private land, in states that are interested in growing jobs, not so much.
Van Meurs said it would be difficult to introduce the changes he’s proposing in what he called a somewhat unfavorable political climate in Alaska.
Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared
The windfall Tax took 70 cents of every dollar of profit leaving the oil companies with 30 cents of profit.
“What the tax has done is take away all the upside,” said Doug Suttles, president of BP Alaska. The U.K.-based oil company paid more than $500 million in taxes to Alaska last quarter — far more than it earned in profits from Alaskan oil, according to Suttles.
Investment dollars are flowing instead to places that have a better return, like the massive deep-water projects offshore in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, where ConocoPhillips said the government take equals less than 50 percent of the barrel.
What caused the uptick in Texas fields in 2010? New technology? Bringing back online old slow producing wells?...........
Perhaps you’ve noticed Obama become MORE autocratic since November?
Last year?
The ACES tax is a sliding scale, it continuous to increase in percentage as the oil price increases. It does not have an inflation allowances so as time goes on, and prices rises along with the deflated value of the dollar, the rate continues to increase.
Obama adds to the problems, but he is not the source of all t
The same steerable horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing, along with a state government that is condusive to business and trying to grow jobs with reasonable tax structure, reasonable regulations and not constant changes in both. There is shale fields in several states, including California and Alaska. But not all states work to grow business and the associated jobs.
About half of the operating drilling rigs in the US are currently in Texas.
North America Rig Count
http://investor.shareholder.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=BHI&fileid=541838&filekey=F32D8ADF-5923-4555-ABE5-5D072FE8BF3A&filename=Rigs_by_State_021012.pdf
For exact locations and other data:
http://gis.bakerhughesdirect.com/RigCounts/default2.aspx
Sorry for the distorted reply above. Corrected below:
The problems addressed in this article are with the Alaska State tax structure. The same federal rules on non-federal land apply in Alaska as well as North Dakota and Texas.
Obama adds to the problems, but he is not the source of all the problems.
It's all the same old game to increase oil company profits that Alaska has watched for 30 years. No offense Thack, I live here too. It's plus 31 here today. I'm going to fire up the skandic and enjoy this nice weather.
That hyperbole has never been the goal. I listened to a presentation by ConocoPhillips last week that hoped they could get to 65% total taxes/royalties/etc. They expect something higher but hope for a combined total of 65%.
If you have the time, I would enjoy reading about that claim. Any time, you know my interest is long term.
There are 7 billion barrels of recoverable reserves still in Alaska I read.
There is more than that, if it wasn't taxed at 85%. Proved reserves have to be economical to recover as well as by available technology. However, there is also far more than that in the lower 48 and in Canada. Alaska is not the only choice for the investment dollars. For Natural Gas as well as Oil. ConocoPhillips is selling LNG in different parts of the world, they would do it here if it was a reasonable tax and some assurance it wouldn't jump back up after the investment.
The article was from a while back.
If Obama gets a second term he might not be able to enact a windfall tax, but he could do worse and send his shock troops (EPA BLM) out and close off land and stop Fracking.
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.