Legislature(2011 - 2012)BUTROVICH 205
02/28/2011 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB91 | |
| SB85 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 85-TAX CREDIT FOR NEW OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT
CO-CHAIR WAGONER announced SB 85 to be up for consideration
mainly for questions of the administration. From the AOGCC Cathy
Foerster and John Norman, from Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) Kevin Banks, and from the Department of Revenue (DOR)
Jerry Burnett were present.
3:40:14 PM
He said he had distributed nine issues that he and his chief of
staff came up with while talking to various members of the
administration staff - AOGCC, DNR and DOR. But, before they go
there, he asked if there were any other questions.
SENATOR FRENCH asked what it costs to get a field ready for
production.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER remarked that was question number 7.
3:41:20 PM
KEVIN BANKS, Director, Division of Oil and Gas, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), said he didn't have those kinds of
figures before him at the moment. Some information may have been
published along with the development of the Nakiachuk project
and the Oooguruk project, which are two fairly recent
developments and he remembered those numbers to be in excess of
$1 billion. He said his information will be based on what has
been published in the trade papers and the Anchorage press.
SENATOR FRENCH said that would be very helpful.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said he asked a couple of people today about
prices of just drilling a well on the North Slope and found a
range from $12 million to $300 million depending on the well and
its location.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked what the administration might think is
the correct parameters for a sunset and then what the interplay
of this credit would be with the other credits. He also asked
about the ring fence issue.
MR. BANKS responded to his first question, how long it takes
some projects to get off the ground and said some start up
within four years, but the average since Alpine started in the
early 90's is around seven years.
3:44:15 PM]
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said the problem with Cook Inlet is that it has
no production tax now, so SB 85 wouldn't be applicable there,
although it would apply in the rest of the state.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if someone did develop in Cook Inlet
could they write that off of their production taxes on the North
Slope.
SENATOR FRENCH said he thought that any company operating in
Alaska would be able to do that.
MR. BANKS agreed that it was also his impression that if a
company was doing some work in the NPRA and accruing these
credits over the time it took to go from exploration to
production, credits could apply to taxes paid anywhere else.
However, at least the bill does limit how long that may be done.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said AOGCC was on line earlier and they talked
about them being the agency to certify the production instead of
DNR.
3:47:43 PM
KATHY FORESTER, Commissioner, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (AOGCC), answered that would be consistent with what
the agency already does and that wouldn't require a fiscal
note.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER stated that AOGCC certifies statewide, while
DNR does it only on state lands.
MS. FORESTER said that is a good point.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked her to speak a little bit about their
earlier discussion on the "pool" as it applies to shale
production.
MS. FORESTER explained that these shales tend to be just
regional trends that cover large areas. While the drainage area
for one well may not impact other wells, they have the expertise
to be able it say if there is continuity and contiguity, then it
really is one reservoir. Then the onus would be on the operator
to scientifically prove it is a new discovery.
3:49:49 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the committee just had a presentation
by Great Bear on Saturday where they talked about the Shugalik
Formation that appeared to run the whole length of the North
Slope west to east. Would that be considered one pool?
MS. FORESTER replied that the operator would have to provide
clear proof of an area being a separate pool like a big fault
and seismic data showing a break in contiguity. In the absence
of that proof the agency would say it is one pool.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said they also hear that the Shugalik
Formation flows into Prudhoe. He asked if the Kuparuk and Alpine
are flowing from the same reservoir.
MS. FORESTER replied that Kuparuk, Alpine and Prudhoe are all
separate pools, but they are all fed by the deeper shales. So,
as the shale goes east to west it would be the source that feeds
all of those pools.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he understands that three layers of shale
in Alaska are considered the shale source rocks. Would each one
of those layers in the east/west "Fairway" be considered one
pool?
MS. FORESTER answered no. If they are not continuous and
contiguous with one another, if they are at different vertical
depths they wouldn't be considered one pool.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN said he understands that those three source
rocks are on top of one another and asked if an individual pool
can run for 300-500 miles.
MS. FORESTER answered yes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said they heard testimony that Great Bear
could drill down and hit the HRZ, the Shublik and the Kingak
pools. So, the way this bill is written would they get separate
tax credits or would they possibly get additional tax credits
for one drill that went through three different pools?
MS. FORESTER replied that she didn't know the answer. They are
three separate pools. If one well drilled through all three of
them that would be the discovery well for all three. Whether
Great Bear chose to develop the three simultaneous or separately
would be their call. They could develop them separately but they
would have one discovery well and each pool would have its
trigger start when that pool produces.
3:54:27 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the first producer accesses a
particular pool - the three layers of source rock as she defines
it - could other potential developers be able to claim the
credit if Great Bear were to penetrate all three pools.
MS. FORESTER replied if the first operator penetrates and
discovers all three, then they get the credit for the discovery.
The next trigger is when they complete the first well, and if
they complete a well in all three, then that starts the clock on
all three. But what she said earlier still holds - those are
three separate pools, but if another operator comes in 50 miles
away and provides data that says their discovery and development
is not in communication with theirs, then they could get it. It
would have to be a geological barrier that wouldn't allow them
to communicate.
MR. BANKS added if the goal of this legislation is to provide
credits for multiple penetrations in either one of those shale
horizons, then obviously they will need some work. Everything
Ms. Forester said is correct. If the idea is to provide for a
set of development credits for the first discovery of a well
that is capable of producing in paying quantities, if there were
no faulting or discontinuities in the shale layer that had been
penetrated by that discovery well, it would mean that no more
credits would be offered to the other players that may be
drilling into the shale prospect.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said that is what he was starting to think and
he had gotten past where he wanted to go, because his idea was
to generate activity to fill up the TAPS pipeline. He didn't
want to be concerned over the pool issue because this is
entirely different than a pool of oil caused by a trap. They
must look more at the language he concluded. He asked him to
talk about unitization.
3:58:13 PM
MR. BANKS responded that typically they want to see a unit
formed by DNR (the AOGCC can do it, too) to assure that the
resources are developed and conserved in that development. They
also want to make sure correlative rights are protected where
there may be different ownership of adjoining leases. The idea
behind unitization is conservation, correlative rights, and
DNR's interest in the economic development of the resource
without duplicative facilities on the surface. If you can
imagine a conventional pool of oil or gas, the idea is to make
sure that all of the lease tracts that may overlay parts of that
pool that contribute to production get their fair share of the
cost and the revenues from its development.
Oil and gas shale may be more complicated because the wells
produce from a fairly limited distance from the well bore and
don't necessarily drain the oil or gas from another lease/well
nearby. So, the issue surrounding unitization with shale would
be a little bit more complicated and they are considering
whether or not unitization is even necessary for a shale play
since each lease can be developed from a set of wells without
concern that they may drain the adjoining leases.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said it really depends more on the acres per
well than unitization. In other words they are talking dropping
down to a surface size of about 80 acres and if you're drilling
into an 80-acre spot - the department showed a perspective of
what would happen - it was kind of a checkerboard. Would that
not be the case?
MR. BANKS responded that was most of the story. In places like
North Dakota the average well spacing was something under 160
acres. But it's also how close to the lease boundary the wells
are drilled and that's under the purview of the AOGCC.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if essentially the lease boundaries would
be sufficient in and of themselves to define access it the money
from that well for a shale play - because it's not draining from
across the lease boundary.
MR. BANKS responded that is where he is headed with this, and
while his understanding of other jurisdictions like North Dakota
and Texas is limited, he didn't think unitization is common with
shale plays because there isn't a concern about drainage from
one lease to another.
4:02:57 PM
MS. FORESTER said the only time unitization might be warranted
in this kind of development is if there are economies that could
encourage greater ultimate recovery to be gained - in other
words stopping competition between checkerboard small leases.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER directed the discussion to commercial
production.
MR. BANKS said he was looking at "commercial production" on page
2, line 24, and thought about using an expression like "capable
of production in paying quantities" in terms of "expenditures
that are incurred after the completion of the first well drilled
that discovers a pool capable of commercial production." The
department has definitions in its regulations for purposes of
defining what the expression means that they could use for
production in paying quantities. He also wanted to see
"sustained production" on line 25 as a requirement before
commencement of production in "paying quantities". Again, he
said the DNR uses regulatory language for "unitization" and
"sustained production" that the committee might want to look at.
SENATOR FRENCH asked him to walk the committee through the
timeline or typical stages of development that will help him
better understand what they are potentially putting the state on
the hook for - before getting to paying quantities. The seismic
and exploration work has been done, an area has been located
where they think it's worth money to drill - all of those costs
are excluded by this because they haven't drilled a well yet.
4:06:21 PM
MR. BANKS replied they are basically talking about a period of
time that could be as little as 4 years to as long as 11 or 12
years, which is what is seen in conventional plays in the last
15 years or so. Any seismic and other work that might have been
done prior to the drilling of the exploration well would not be
entitled to a credit in this bill. In fact, the exploration well
itself would not be entitled to these credits. They actually
begin when expenditures are being made to go through the next
stages and he defined those as basically two: delineation where
further wells are drilled to get a better understanding of the
extent of the prospect that has been discovered. The exploration
well tells you that oil is there; now you need to know just how
well this area can be defined and how much eventual production
can be produced from it.
And, after delineation, a company would be making commitments to
begin development. This stage includes the construction of many
of the surface facilities and roads, pipelines/flow lines and
processing facilities. Finally it gets to the point where
production begins and the commencement of "sustained" or
"production in paying quantities" would occur when all of the
kit is in place and ready to go. The period between this
delineation and development stage can be anywhere from 4-7
years. Folks at Great Bear think they can get their shale plays
into production must faster, but that depends on their ability
to access the wells 365/days a year in order to move the oil
into a pipeline.
4:09:30 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked where Alaska is in this process - where
they know there is a pool capable of commercial production
because a well has been drilled there, but they haven't begun
the surface development. Is there a "perfect poster child" for
this bill?
MR. BANKS replied that he could think of situations where
exploration wells have been drilled and the first question - is
oil there - has been answered. Now the delineation process is
beginning. He just recently unitized the Dewline Unit and the
Beechey Point Unit north of Prudhoe Bay. A couple of units in
NPRA have had exploration wells drilled, but the delineation
still needs to occur. The bill as it is now looks for prospects
that haven't been explored and exploration drilling hasn't
occurred. He didn't know if they have a lot of candidates in
line for that.
MS. FORESTER added an example of something that is already
discovered that operators are playing with but have never made
commercial and that would be the Ugnu. That throws in another
question: do you want to incentivize that sort of production as
well?
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said that is something to think about.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked where Sag River would fit in with the
exploration delineation development timeline.
MS. FORESTER said she wasn't familiar with the details of that
project.
MR. BANKS replied that Sag River is a tight sand formation that
has been under production at Milne Point. He didn't know to what
extent this type of play exists in a lot of other places.
4:12:39 PM
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked Ms. Forester about the possibility of
overproducing a field to get the high credits to offset gold
plating development costs. The result would be to deplete the
fields.
MS. FORESTER asked if he was talking about an operator
discovering the pool and then completing the first well but not
establishing production until he had put in all the wells.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER replied no. He is talking about a company
getting high credits for its tax liability with overproduction
which would deplete the wells. Would a cap help them get away
from the risk of gold plating?
MS. FORESTER said if he meant they couldn't recover any more
than their liability and that would prevent them from gaming the
system, her answer is that she never underestimates an
operator's ability to get "cagey."
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said they are just trying to be careful.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said one concern he had was that production
curves typically spike up and then slope downward, and since
they have companies that will go out and spend maybe hundreds of
millions of dollars developing the well, he asked if she
foresees a situation where a company tries to take out more oil
and having that potentially damage the field or cause waste down
the line.
MS. FORESTER answered that existing statutes and regulations
require operators to come to the AOGCC for pool rules before
they begin production and they have to demonstrate how they plan
to drill the field, plumb up the wells and produce them.
Prevention of waste is one of the primary things AOGCC does. So,
if an operator came in with a plan that in some way looks like
it would be causing waste, they would deny it.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN said he didn't understand how gold plating
development costs fit in.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER gave an example of when a company would spend
money that they don't necessarily have to spend to achieve the
goal - like using a bigger machine than necessary just to get
more money back on the credit side.
SENATOR FRENCH said he had a flip-side question to Senator
Wielechowski's one about accelerated production: what incentives
might be in the bill to delay commencement of production because
a company would be getting a credit for every nickel of
development costs they incur.
4:16:54 PM
SENATOR STEVENS joined the committee.
MS. FORESTER responded that is something an operator would do if
the credit wasn't capped at their tax liability for any given
year as well as capping the number of years in which the credit
can be used, which a sunset would accomplish.
MR. BANKS added that section (c) on page 3, line 2, creates a
tension because it says a company is not entitled to cash in its
credits until production begins. The other factor is that any
delay in receiving the cash for credits will play against the
net present value of that delay.
4:19:58 PM
CO-CHAIR WAGONER emphasized that the credit is limited by how
much a company's production is per year.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked again where these credits fit in with all
the other credits the state offers.
MR. BANKS responded that a company might be entitled to some of
the AS 43.55.025 credits for the exploration well during this
development state - post discovery - and is not entitled to any
other kind of credit, the capital credits for example. And then
post production the tax is calculated on the basis of just the
normal deductions and then as the chairman has pointed out on
page 3, line 23, of SB 85 this credit that is limited by the
production attributable to this particular property. So, the
taxpayer has to make some kind of judgment about whether or not
this bill is more valuable because they are getting 100 percent
of their development costs paid for but they have to wait for
the cash and they also have a cap on how much they can get
versus just the normal 20 percent capital credits allowed under
AS 43.55.023.
4:23:07 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he had two concerns with the credit
issue: potentially delaying well completion and gold plating.
For instance, maybe Jeeps are the standard on the North Slope,
but then they start using Humvees which are twice the price. He
wasn't sure they had fully addressed either concern.
MR. BANKS said he would have to think about the gold plating
issue and commented that whenever the state is paying a part of
the cost it represents some concern and the larger the credit
the bigger the problem. Here, even though the state is willing
to cover 100 percent of the costs during the development stage,
whether or not a company could get enough production to generate
a tax liability against which the credit will apply remains a
question. So, taking a chance that you will somehow be able to
artificially inflate your credits against potential production
in the first five years of the field seems to be an offsetting
incentive. If you don't think you are going to get all of your
credits back you might not be willing to artificially pump up
the cost.
4:25:24 PM
MS. FORESTER added that the risk of gold plating is low on
Senator Wielechowski's example because the operator still has to
get a return on his investment. If he buys a Humvee he still has
to get a return on that Humvee. If he could make more money
buying a Jeep he's not going to try "to screw the state" with a
little tax credit. But she thought the gold plating could become
an issue if the operator says he only has the potential to have
20,000 barrels/day of production for 10 years on what he
currently has leased, but he thought he could expand in the
future and wants to put in a huge facility right now (to be
ready to handle all of that extra production). And she wasn't
sure they don't want to encourage an operator to hope he can get
80,000 barrels/day instead of 20,000.
4:27:14 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE said on the unitization issue she has heard that
the downside of ACES has really fallen on the satellites in the
unit, and that areas in Kuparuk and Prudhoe Bay would be
developed but for the tax system. She wondered if they want to
talk about that at some point because this new credit applies
only to areas that haven't been within a unit.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said the bill currently excludes them and he
wanted someone to "work that portion of it" and volunteered her
to do it. Several plays in currently unitized areas are not
commercially feasible to produce because of the tax structure or
a couple of other items, and they hadn't come up with any
recommendations yet.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if one system would be preferable to
another system for either an unconventional or a conventional
oil play.
MS. FORESTER stated that he should ask the operators for their
advice on that because they are much more familiar with their
economic situations that she is.
MR. BANKS offered that it comes down to the two issues they have
already talked about: how much of the 100 percent credit will be
realized in the first five years of production given that sort
of caps the size of the cash flow one would get from the state,
and also the fact that you have to wait between the time of
making those expenditures and the start of production. Having
said that, if you have a prospect that will require significant
challenges in terms of what the development might look like - it
might be something like an offshore prospect or something on
federal land that may be fraught with permitting issues - that
means you're going to be waiting a long time before you are able
to realize any kind of benefits from the credits. Shale oil has
high initial rates of production, but then very quickly drops
down to a more steady rate - Bakken 1,000 barrels/day initially
but within two years or so it dropped down to a couple hundred
barrels a day. Depending on how many wells fit under some kind
of project like this it may be defined as a property that
qualifies for this kind of tax, but an operator may find that
the amount of tax liability he is accruing in the first five
years of production might not be enough to make up for the
initial investment, and the 100 percent credit is less valuable
for that reason.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER stated that this credit isn't meant to pay 100
percent of their costs, but it's supposed to incentivize and
help a company get financing to do a project.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said they should be very careful in terms
of expansion. He said he had pulled up an old presentation from
the Department of Revenue that showed the state currently picks
up 76 percent of the costs of an exploration well. If they are
now going to pick up 100 percent of the development costs, at
what point do they say let's just pick up the other 24 percent
and end up socializing the entire risk and privatizing all the
profits.
He asked Mr. Banks how to define "sustained production" in the
context of Point Thomson that is supposed to start producing
10,000 barrels of condensate per day; would that be considered
sustained production?
MR. BANKS answered that he had suggested earlier using language
from the department's unitization regulations that say
"sustained unit production" means, "continuing production of oil
or gas from a reservoir in the unit area into a pipeline or
other means of transportation to market, but does not include
testing, evaluation or pilot production." So, depending on how
they view the 10,000 barrel/day project in the Exxon Point
Thomson case, that may almost be regarded as pilot production,
but that determination hasn't been made yet.
4:36:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said they hear testimony on wells that are
marginal and he wanted to get as much data as possible about why
that is so. So he asked the DOR to provide as much data as they
could on why are the fields marginal. What lever can the state
pull to get them in production? Roads? Royalty relief? A tax
break? He didn't feel they had the data that is needed to make a
lot of these decisions.
4:37:34 PM
Finding no further comments, Co-Chair Wagoner thanked everyone
for coming and adjourned the meeting at 4:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|