Dang it, thanks for the corrections.
Revised for 2011
Net Income in Alaska (E&P) was $1,983,000,000
Net World E&P Income was $8,242,000,000
Net Total Income was $12,436,000,000
Looks like almost 16%. It is 24% when you only count E&P.
Significant part of higher profit is the lack of new investment in Alaska. Sure it makes it look good this year in comparison; they are spending their dollars elsewhere. What do you think it holds for the Future of Alaska as the production continues to decline while the lower 48 is seeing a climb?
Correct. I said "E&P profitability". That's the way to look at it, considering the miniscule effect of other CP businesses in Alaska.
Significant part of higher profit is the lack of new investment in Alaska.
I actually agree with that. And getting to the real answers to the problem actually needs some adult conversation, not a bunch of "It's Palin's fault" BS. At least she tried to address it with significant tax breaks under ACES for exploration.
ConocoPhillips has been coining money in Alaska for decades under 3 different tax systems. And they've been spending a far smaller relative amount on capital investments and exploration under all 3 tax systems. Capital expenditures are actually UP under ACES, although clearly not enough.
Alaska has some built-in disadvantages to new exploration but also some existing infrastructure advantages. I'd like to get to the bottom of it, but the debate up there has turned poisonously political. Fat chance to get at the facts in that environment. And with all due respect, thackney, you're not helping with some of the sources you quote. The Big 3 has long since demonstrated that they have not earned the "trust me" seal of approval in Alaska.