Gov. Sean Parnell doesn’t like the fact that North Dakota’s oil production surpassed Alaska’s. It’s “not because we are running out of oil” he said while promoting his latest version of oil tax reform during his State of the State speech, “but because we are running behind the competition.” One legislative opponent of tax cuts for the oil industry says it could mean “tens of billions of dollars of lost revenue in the coming decades.” But that’s not an Alaskan voice. It’s a state senator from North Dakota.
The oil coming out of North Dakota’s ground is from reserves that have been known to exist since the 1950s. But the boom they’re experiencing today can be attributed to the high price of oil and industry-wide technological innovation — horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. It has nothing to do with the state’s tax structure. In fact, according to a North Dakota television news station they have “one of the highest oil production and extraction taxes in the nation.” The WDAZ story goes on to say that leaders in the oil industry “have urged lawmakers to lower the tax in order for the state to stay competitive in oil development.”
It seems the oil lobby has convinced some state legislators that it’s a problem which needs fixing now. So Republican Senator Dwight Cook introduced legislation last week which proposes to reduce the state’s oil extraction tax. According to an Associated Press story circulating around the state, “Cook says he worked with oil companies to craft the proposed legislation.”
Now, doesn’t this all sound familiar. However, the opponents of the bill have more than the potential loss of revenue argument on their side. State Representative Corey Mock was quick to point out the obvious. “In the last six years under our current tax structure” he said, “North Dakota went from being the ninth largest oil producing state to the second top producer.” And in agreeing with Mack’s position, the editorial board at the Grand Forks Herald referenced independent studies in Wyoming, Utah and Alberta, Canada which all concluded that taxes aren’t a big driver behind oil industry production and investment decisions.
Could this be why Department of Revenue Commissioner Bryan Butcher said last week that he’s seen no evidence that tax credits to oil companies have led to increased production? Although he’s sure tax increases chase away the oil companies. At least that’s what he claims to have learned after meeting with officials in North Dakota and Alberta in 2011. “Alberta raised its royalty in response to Alaska’s tax hike” he wrote in the Anchorage Daily News, and “industry executives responded by doing exactly what they said they were going to do: They poured more money into Saskatchewan and other states and provinces, sending Alberta into a tailspin.”
So what does all this say about Parnell’s argument that oil producers have chosen to invest in North Dakota instead of Alaska? What happens if Alaska’s Legislature passes his oil tax reform this year and North Dakota gives the oil companies the tax break they want there? Will that make Alaska’s tax structure “uncompetitive” again?
It seems like the oil companies are pitting state and provincial governments against each other in an attempt to lower their tax burden everywhere. And they can do that largely because they control all the information. That’s according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Their 2012 Annual Outlook is referenced by Parnell to support his to claim that taxes are among the greatest costs discouraging development here. But the entire DOE analysis about North Slope oil production and the operational limits of the Trans Alaskan Pipeline is qualified by this statement – “there is little or no information available to the public on operating and maintenance costs for existing oil fields, how those costs have grown historically as production has declined, or how they might grow in the future.”
If government officials don’t have access to the real costs of extracting and transporting oil in Alaska, then how can they begin to understand the effect of taxes on production and investment? The only conclusion that seems worth trusting is we’ve got to stop believing the oil companies and the politicians who defend them.
• Moniak is a Juneau resident.





Comments (18)
Add commentHow interesting!
So here we have some information that seems to dispute the whole lower taxes will create more oil production. It also apparent ND does have "one of the high erst extraction taxes in the nation." While the Alaskan Commissioner of Revenue indicates tax credits do not lead to more oil production.
So whose fooling who on all this need to lower taxes to be competitive and incentives more Alaskan production? Well I say its Governor Parnell and his oil friends trying to fool Alaskans.
Sean Parnell is Frank
Sean Parnell is Frank Murkowski with a pretty face.
Not so fast
define pretty!
The solution's obvious
We must out-compete North Dakota! Therefore we need...to pay the oil companies for each barrel of our oil that they harvest. It's the only way.
JE-font for Lat
Again, it seems we are in dire need of that sarcastic font. It would be so helpful.
If I remember correctly
During the last legislative session, international experts on the oil industry also said that the taxes, or whatever a government charges for its oil, is only one factor among many. There are many other elements that oil companies consider when it comes to new exploration, new technology and investment. To imply that by just reducing the price we get for the oil we sell the companies will increase production is fallacious - it is misleading.
Also Sen. Wielechowski and others have presented information and facts showing that with the present system, activity and production on the North Slope has continued to be good. There may have to be modifications to the current prices but there seems to be no justification to abolish the progressive tax system entirely.
That's the way I remember things and understand the facts we have today. I could be mistaken,and so will await further comments regarding Mr. Moniak's article, which I think is very informative.
@rhythm
It's true, Frank was a "bloated 'ristocrat", but that dude has forgotten more political chops then Parnell will ever learn. Compared to Murky, Parnell is a fledgling. What were Alaskans thinking when they elected an oil lobbyist to the highest office in the state? Compare post-tax profits in ND with Alaska, and then tell me again why we "must" give an additional 2 BILLION per year to harvest OUR oil...
Rich, you're attempting to
Rich, you're attempting to compare apples to oranges.
This is a very interesting report on every aspect of the state's oil and gas industry with comparisons to other states and countries -
Alaska’s
Oil and
Gas Fiscal
Regime - January 2012
http://www.revenue.state.ak.us/acloserlook.pdf
calypso
reading the oil and gas revenue report one thing stood out to me....small players that are hungry to earn a profit are having no problem with todays ACES, just the big players that wish for the good old days.
kjshen
Small companies willing to do better for themselves and Alaska? I think that is called "competition". For all the talk about competition being good for economy, when one business, an airlines, food company, oil company- when someone says "I can do the same for less profit" they don't like that.
Governor Parnell...
...and our republican legislature clearly have no faith in competition and the free enterprise system. Otherwise they would put it to the test right here.
Of course, that's if you actually believe in the fiction of 'free enterprise' when it comes to oil companies and politicians. I think the only governor we've had in a generation who actually exemplified that was Sarah Palin.
Pretty soon
Parnell will be lobbying Congress for a oil company bail out.
Rich, If you want to really
Rich,
If you want to really see how AK stacks up to ND taxes go here: http://www.nd.gov/tax/genpubs/2012-redbook.pdf
It’s better than basing your position on a quote from a ND TV Station. Also note the drop in our oil production and the rise in ND production.
Non-renewable
Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource. Once they're pumped put and sold they're gone forever. Left in the ground they will only over the long run increase in value. Even areas opened up by new technology will some day run out. But it seems the Republicans want to pump out every barrel as quickly as possible regardless of what the damage it does to Alaskans. Cutting the states oil revenue will not increase production. A fool and his money...
No-road
You're missing something. In Alaska, our taxes are really combined taxes and royalties. In North Dakota, where 90% of the land is in private ownership, the taxes in the RedBook are only state taxes. Royalties from mineral rights come to 12.5% (I think) of the oil take.
So add royalties to taxes and the oil companies pay pretty dearly for the oil they extract there. And in order to get the oil to flow, not only do they have to drill, but they also have to frack, which is another expensive process. And without a pipeline, they have to ship by much more expensive railcar.
And finally, if you actually read the RedBook that you linked to, you'd see that the ND tax structure is highly progressive, much moreso than the Alaska tax structure.
Ok, Lets keep ACES and Talk State Budget
Let's assume all of the non industry tax lawyers are right and we have no chance of slowing decline. Let's shift to the State budget and where we are headed with revenue. Not to mention that 90% comes from oil. We need to cut the budget by 15% year on year starting now to match the decline rate and the Alaska Marine Highway is the first place to look at. Unless the SE is going to save the State with FISH, LOGS, or Tourism.
..a bull`s eye.
Just a great article. It should be required reading in Juneau. These facts you mention need to be entered into the debate. Fairclough going to do it?.. Dunleavey? Don`t bet on it. Huggins, Hawker Chenault? Johnson?... again, don`t bet the farm on facts getting in their way.
Doug
You're confusing production with revenue. The price of oil will keep going up, so even if production decreases, our budget decline will be far less than 15%.
Factors to Consider
When I studied at the Colorado School of Mines, I took a class on Natural Gas Processing. One of the things I learned is that there are many factors the industry uses to determine where it will develop like stabalized Government, lower taxes, cheaper labor, easy access to resources and cashflow.
In Alaska, the oil companies compete out contracts thus keeping costs down. lower taxes mean more profit. In 2012, ConocoPhillips earned $2.6 Billion under our existing oil tax structure.
More is just more. More breaks equal more profit. I say, leave the existing oil tax structure alone.