Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Hollis French's ADN Op-Ed & Kelly Walters' Tenacity

Tuesday's edition of the Anchorage Daily News contains an op-ed column by Alaska state Senator Hollis French. Even as the AK House is folding under the relentless pressure of Big Oil to throw out ACES, and as the two biggest turncoats in the history of the Alaska Democratic Party, Bill ("we'll finish it a decade late and at five times the cost") Sheffield and Tony (working for the National Energy Policy Institute on the side) Knowles spew one lie after another to rip Alaskans off for a couple of billion bucks per year, Sen. French is leading the battle in Juneau to keep the legislation from gaining traction in the upper house.

The ADN, according to media producer Kelly Walters, has published several op-eds supportive of ACES repeal: "This is the FIRST oped published in the ADN since February 23 that told the truth. There have been NINE, fact-challenged anti-ACES pieces and ONE neutral piece."

Walters is all over the commenters to French's ADN post, and he's challenging the industry-crafted proposed legislation's backers with arguments buttressing French, and with lots of HTML links to his sources.

Here's the text of Sen. French's op-ed, which doesn't appear to be copyrighted by the ADN:

Oil tax reduction is based on myths; oil industry grew since ACES began

--- by Sen. Hollis French

An advertising campaign is under way to persuade the Legislature and the public to go along with the governor's plan to reduce taxes on some of the richest corporations in the world. The campaign is founded upon several myths that do not stand up to close examination. Let's take a look at some of them.

Myth: Oil company investment is down on the North Slope since ACES passed.

Fact: Oil industry capital investment on the North Slope is up 35 percent since ACES passed. This data comes from the oil industry itself. This year capital spending on the Slope will be $2.76 billion.

Myth: Oil companies are leaving Alaska.

Fact: Repsol, an oil company with 40,000 employees and operations in 29 countries, announced plans a month ago to invest at least $768 million in oil exploration and development on the North Slope. This is new money coming to the state. One thing that attracted Repsol to Alaska was our stable political climate.

Myth: Wells are not being drilled on the Slope.

Fact: 164 development wells were drilled on the North Slope in 2010, an increase of 24 percent over 2009. That's right: Drilling was up last year, not down as some would have you believe.

Myth: The pipeline is going to be shut down soon.

Fact: This is highly unlikely. OCS development could add 1 million barrels of production into the pipeline. And just this month BP launched a $100 million "heavy oil" pilot project at Milne Point. BP is under time pressure to get its heavy oil reserves out of the ground as it needs to blend that oil with lighter crude to render it shippable in the pipeline. Heavy oil could, according to BP, amount to 250,000 barrels per day in a few years.

Myth: The oil industry is unanimously opposed to ACES.

Fact: Most industry business people think ACES is OK. The Fraser Institute Global Petroleum Survey asked 364 companies with exploration and development budgets totaling $161 billion about whether ACES was working or not. These are industry insiders, and fully 70 percent of them said that ACES either encouraged investment or was no deterrent to investment.

Myth: Progressivity takes too much when oil prices are high.

Fact: Progressivity is the feature in ACES that raises the tax rate once profits climb. What you don't hear about are the credits the state grants for investment in Alaska. The credits reduce an oil company's taxes dollar for dollar. And according to the Department of Revenue, the credits granted in 2010 were nearly equal to the amount collected under progressivity. In other words, what the state takes in under progressivity goes back as credits to the companies that are actually investing in Alaska.

These facts are inconvenient for those who believe that giving $2 billion per year to the oil industry, which the governor's bill would do, will somehow lead to a full pipeline. Keep in mind that oil production has been declining on the North Slope since 1988. It has declined about 6 percent on average every year since then. Oil taxes were lower during much of that time. Why did production rates decline during a period of low oil taxes? The answer is simple. Because that's what the vast majority of oil reservoirs do. They decline.

Alaska does need new oil in the pipeline. The problem is that the governor's bill does not bring any assurances of more production. Don't take my word for it. This headline ran in this newspaper recently: "Parnell's oil tax gets BP's praise but no promises. Spokesman stops short of saying jobs or investment would result." The unfortunate truth is that we could pass the governor's bill and not see another dollar of investment.

A bill that actually stimulates new exploration and production without giving away the farm will get support in the Legislature. For example, we are considering a bill that focuses on granting credits for drilling in unexplored areas of the state. But the debate must be based on facts and not the myths and half-truths that some are peddling.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't trust the fucking oil companies.

Big oil is obligated to steal, lie or cheat on behalf of their stockholders. Big oil has no obligation to do anything for the benefit of the Alaska.

I am a conservative Republican who supports oil development and tax incentives.

But I do not trust the fucking oil companies.

Anonymous said...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

Read this shit

Kelly Walters said...

Thanks for the props Phil!

Kelly

Kimberly said...

I noticed you have not cited a single source. Without evidence to support your argument, the validity of your argument remains questionable.

roosterbluelips said...

It would seem this post has been updated. Either way, the evidence would suggest your premise to be correct: lowering oil taxes will have no affect on exploration and production. Great Bear and Repsol are both interested in using advanced oil fracking techniques on the North Slope as early as this year. What concerns me though is a six month investigation by the New York Times revealing radiation as a result of this advanced technique. Ah, but that's not the issue at hand. I say "no" to lowering taxes for oil companies. And, while we're on the issue of taxes, I'm curious why there is no mention of the oil tax audit debacle?