After 16 months of pushing his tax incentive bill for the oil companies, Governor Sean Parnell finally blinked. The state Senate forced him to modify his original proposal just enough to call it a compromise. He hasn’t budged on tax reductions for legacy field production. Nor does his new proposal provide any assurances that the oil companies will reinvest their tax savings in Alaska. But even if the Governor and the Senate can overcome these differences, it won’t end the oil tax debate.
First of all, I believe Senate President Gary Stevens deserves a lot of credit for leading the resistance to House Bill 110. Whether one thought it was a giveaway to big oil or a means to get more crude into the Trans Alaska Pipeline, the Senate is supposed to be a check valve for all ideas coming out of the Governor’s office. They did their job by deliberating long and hard before offering a compromise for the Governor to consider.
Parnell isn’t satisfied with the Senate’s efforts though. He believes their bill will fail to spur more oil production in the existing North Slope fields. Former state representative Andrew Halcro agrees. He called the Senate’s proposal “a cynical attempt at election year hocus-pocus” that puts the state’s economy at risk and makes us more dependent on government spending.
Of course there are opponents to making any changes to the ACES tax regime that’s been in place for five years. Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, believes it already has significant incentives to promote new exploration, the costs of which can be used to reduce the tax rates on production from existing fields.
The oil companies opposed ACES right from the start. They complained it constituted the third tax increase in three years. However, one of those occurred because Governor Frank Murkowski implemented a regulation already on the books. In other words, the companies weren’t paying the state what they legally owed.
In a way, that’s been their standard mode of operation throughout the history of the North Slope oil fields. From the time the pipeline opened until 1992, the companies understated the market value of the oil, overstated the transportation costs and thus artificially lowered the value used to compute the royalties due to the state.
After that dispute was settled, a decade long battle ensued over the tariff that the pipeline owners (including BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil) charged themselves for shipping oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. That cost was mainly contested by Anadarko and Tesoro, both independently owned Alaska businesses who aren’t part of the pipeline consortium. They believed they were being overcharged for using the pipeline. But the inflated tariffs also reduced the taxes and royalties that the big three paid to the state.
The point here isn’t necessarily what constitutes fair taxation for oil extracted off our lands. It’s a matter of how far the oil companies can and will go to maximize profits. Like all huge corporations, they can spend millions on lobbying efforts to change the tax laws. They’re armed with enough attorneys to drag out any court challenges. And in this case, as Halcro writes, they can hold the state hostage by waiting “as long as they want, even pumping as little as 200,000 barrels per day” until they get a tax reform bill that satisfies them.
“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes” wrote Benjamin Franklin a few centuries ago. Death doesn’t apply to corporations though, and it seems the some of the biggest ones believe they should be immune from taxation too. For instance, in 2010 General Electric earned profits comparable to Conoco Philips, yet they paid no corporate income tax. Besides their lawyers and lobbyists, they employ almost 1,000 tax accountants who, according to the New York Times, spend half their time searching for loopholes to exploit.
So even if Parnell prevails, it’s fair to say the oil companies will never be satisfied. Sooner or later they’ll back in Juneau lobbing for even lower taxes. In the meantime, we can expect them to rely on litigation and creative accounting techniques to lower their tax burden. And the oil tax debate will outlive us all.
• Moniak is a resident of Juneau.





Comments (7)
Add commentHere's my compromise
Let's vote Parnell out of office at our earliest opportunity.
no win for Alaskans
"they can hold the state hostage by waiting “as long as they want, even pumping as little as 200,000 barrels per day”
That is exactly what I was afraid could happen. If they dont obtain what the Gov has proposed, what is stopping them from having a "pump slowdown"? Are there any legal protections in writing for the State of Alaska if they attempt this? This was a totally irresponsible proposal by this Governor that has put our State in jeopardy.
Amen to that. Good letter.
Amen to that.
Good letter.
Honorable and Sane Republicans
Gary Stevens and Bert Stedman are putting the people of Alaska before the profits of Big Oil. It is great to see people coming before the party.
I think Moniak is right - the battle will never end
I think Moniak is right if people do what they are hired or elected to do. Corporations and businesses are mainly, or entirely interested in profits or the "bottom line" for their organization and shareholders. Good leaders of those organizations will always do what is best for themselves.
On the other hand, if elected representatives do what they are elected to do, that is do and get what is best for the people, they will always be at logger-heads with those who want to benefit at constituents expense. And the writers of our State Constitution knew that when they drew up our constitution.
@Wally
I know leaders of corporations and businesses will always do what is best for themselves but whether or not one can call them "good" is questionable. How much profit is enough for the oil companies? Businesses have always wanted to profit but nowadays they do it on the backs of other people. Greed and dishonesty have taken over. Next the Governor will tell us we have no additional money for schools, roads, emergency services, because its all in the pockets of his buddies.
pump slowdown?
@kiki: If big oil were to attempt deliberately less production, what would stop the state from yanking their leases and giving them to their competitors?
We are mutually dependent upon each other. However, we have the oil. That gives us leverage. We should use that leverage. I seriously doubt they would ever induce deliberately decreased production, because that would mean decreased profits to them, and their business is greed-based.
There has to be a point where we tell big oil, "This is our oil. This is how much it will cost you to drill it. Non-negotiable. Take it or leave it."
I still like my idea of imposing a 2% whine tax. That's where we impose a 2% tax on quarterly gross profits of any oil company which complains about taxes or requests revisions to our tax codes. Then, we double that percentage with each subsequent whine.
Finally, the other thing that irks me is, simply because the governor wants taxes reduced for oil companies doesn't mean the legislature is obliged to find legislation to make it happen. The House could have simply said, "Um. No. We don't agree. Sorry." But instead, the House rubber stamped it, and the Senate spent months trying to hammer out a solution. The Senate could have spent that time hammering out other solutions to other real problems facing Alaska.
I hope
its the way you describe it, @Jo. I dont know what the requirements are on the leases, hopefully the State does have the control you reference. But if they dont, I still believe its possible they would do a slow down and just turn their sights on other leases to, as the article says, hold the State hostage. Im not saying the Legislature should grant the tax breaks in fear of this, quite the opposite, but I do think the Gov has set our State up for potential damage one way or another.