Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/08/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB21 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 8, 2013
1:37 p.m.
1:37:41 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alternate
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
ALSO PRESENT
Damian Bilbao, Head of Finance, British Petroleum; Scott
Jepsen, Vice President, External Affairs, ConocoPhillips
Alaska; Bob Heinrich, Vice President Finance,
ConocoPhillips Alaska; Dan Seckers, Tax Counsel,
ExxonMobil.
SUMMARY
CSSB 18(FIN) am
BUDGET: CAPITAL
CSSB 18(FIN) am was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 21(FIN) am (efd fld)
OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION TAX
CSSB 21(FIN) am (efd fld) was HEARD and HELD in
committee for further consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 21(FIN) am(efd fld)
"An Act relating to the interest rate applicable to
certain amounts due for fees, taxes, and payments made
and property delivered to the Department of Revenue;
providing a tax credit against the corporation income
tax for qualified oil and gas service industry
expenditures; relating to the oil and gas production
tax rate; relating to gas used in the state; relating
to monthly installment payments of the oil and gas
production tax; relating to oil and gas production tax
credits for certain losses and expenditures; relating
to oil and gas production tax credit certificates;
relating to nontransferable tax credits based on
production; relating to the oil and gas tax credit
fund; relating to annual statements by producers and
explorers; establishing the Oil and Gas
Competitiveness Review Board; and making conforming
amendments."
1:37:55 PM
DAMIAN BILBAO, HEAD OF FINANCE, BRITISH PETROLEUM (BP),
provided an overview of his comments. He presented a
PowerPoint presentation "Mr. Pulliam Testimony to House
Finance on HCS CSSB 21(RES)."
Mr. Bilbao discussed slide 2: "Overview."
· BP in Alaska - working with the State over 50 years
· Alaska has great resource potential and people
· Under Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES),
Alaska is at the back of the line in competition for
investment
· HCS CSSB 21(RES) meets the Governor's four principles
and will put Alaska back in the game of oil
investments.
Mr. Bilbao detailed slide 3: "BP in Alaska - 54 years, and
counting…"
BP presence in Alaska since 1959
· Operating area
o 250 miles north of the Arctic Circle
o 1200 sq. miles (approximately the size of
Rhode Island)
o Prudhoe Bay Unit, Endicott, Milne Point,
Northstar
· People
o 2,300 BP Alaska employees
o 6,000 contract employees
· Facilities (start-up 1977)
o 11 major production facilities
o 2 major gas facilities
o 3 water handling facilities
o 2000 production/injection wells
· Prudhoe Bay
o Original production estimate ~9.6 billion
barrels
o Cumulative production has exceeded 12
billion barrels
o More than 2 billion barrels remaining
o Largest field in North America - 35 years
o COP ~36%, XOM ~36%, BP ~26%, CVX ~2%
1:43:04 PM
Mr. Bilbao discussed slide 4: "Estimated Capital Spending
for Exploration and Development Alaska North Slope vs. U.S.
and Worldwide Spending 2003-2012." The graph was prepared
by Econ One Research. He noted that the price of oil
increased steadily as illustrated by the graph's black
line. He noted that the price of oil provided the greatest
determinate for investment. From 2003 - 2008 the
investments were consistent with investments tracking the
price of oil. The graph's blue bar no longer increased with
the price of oil beginning in 2007. The trend continued
through 2012. The U.S. spending continued to increase. When
the price of oil dropped to $60 per barrel, investment
followed. Following the decrease, global spending tracked
the increasing price of oil with the exception of Alaska.
The level of investment in Alaska was higher in 2007;
however lost opportunities resulted from growth and
investment occurring elsewhere.
1:46:43 PM
Mr. Bilbao discussed slide 5: "Crude Oil Production Alaska
North Slope vs. United States and OECD Countries 2003-
2012." The graph depicted oil production. In Alaska
production continued to decline. Globally new drilling and
new pads led to increases in production following 2008.
Unfortunately the increase in production seen in the Lower
48 did not occur in Alaska.
1:48:12 PM
Mr. Bilbao discussed slide 6: "Both conventional and
unconventional oil production has grown in the Lower 48."
He commented on the opinion that new production in the
Lower 48 resulted from new technology from the shale oil
revolution. He pointed out that Alaska production declined
from year to year. He compared the onshore to the offshore
production. The shale oil or "tight oil" increased
significantly in production. He added that conventional oil
production had increased as well. He concluded that Alaska
did not benefit from the increase in investment as other
jurisdictions had.
1:49:53 PM
Mr. Bilbao discussed slide 7: "Alaska does not compete for
investment." The graph was constructed by PFC Energy. He
explained that PFC Energy compared Alaska to other
jurisdictions.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the logo and PFC Energy. Mr.
Bilbao replied that the source of the graph was PFC Energy.
Representative Gara asked if PFC Energy was working for BP.
Mr. Bilbao replied no. The material was generated by PFC
Energy and then used by BP to simplify the conversation.
Mr. Bilbao noted that the red arrows showed how Alaska fell
under ACES. Investment in Alaska moved to other
jurisdictions where the investment climate was more
attractive. He added that Alaska fell behind in
competitiveness for investment. He noted the geographic and
environmental challenges that made Alaska a fundamentally
high-cost region of operation.
1:52:16 PM
Mr. Bilbao discussed slide 8: "Why doesn't ACES work?" The
graph depicted a representation of the sharing of a barrel
of oil between the state, the federal government and the
industry, when it sold for $110 per barrel. The data was
gathered from the Department of Revenue's (DOR) Fall
Forecast, 2012. The top of the barrel depicted Alaska state
revenue at $36 per barrel. The federal government would
benefit in the amount of $12 per barrel. He added that the
deductible costs amounted to approximately $40 per barrel,
which was used to support operations and investing for the
future. Adding all of the costs together equaled $88 per
barrel leaving $22 as the industry share. The $22 must
first cover BP's non-deductible expenses. Under ACES, the
employees in Anchorage were considered non-deductible
costs, which must first be covered by the industry share
before the remaining amount was returned to the
shareholders. A change in the tax structure would allow BP
the opportunity to invest further in Alaska.
1:55:09 PM
Representative Wilson requested a graph similar to slide 8,
utilizing HCS CSSB 21(RES) instead of ACES. Mr. Bilbao
replied that under HCS CSSB 21(RES), the state share would
be $33, with $13 as the deductible cost. The industry share
increased to $24 per barrel with HCS CSSB 21(RES).
Representative Gara asked about slide 4. He noted that the
slide stopped at FY 12. He pointed out that the Revenue
Source Book cited $1.5 billion in capital expenditures in
2007 prior to ACES. He stated that the "Fall 2012 Revenue
Source Book" stated the forecast as $3.8 billion in capital
expenditures or over 100 percent increase. He wondered if
the slide could be extended past 2012.
1:57:46 PM
Mr. Bilbao stated that BP did not make any changes to the
material provided by the consultants. He deferred the
question to the consultants. He stated that BP did not
expect their investments to change between 2012 and 2013.
Representative Gara asked for an investment forecast for
next year. Mr. Bilbao offered to obtain the information for
the committee.
1:58:32 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about slide 8: The deductible cost
under ACES at $40 for capital and operating expenditures.
He understood that the operating cost remained the same
under HCS CSSB 21(RES) and wondered if the amount included
the 33 percent along with the $45 slide. Mr. Bilbao
responded that the overall representation of DOR data was
presented, but the allowed costs were primarily the capital
and operating expenditures. Included were the investments
in new wells and facilities along with salary payments for
North Slope employees. He stated that the impact linked to
the production was reflected in the amount of revenue that
the state derived.
Representative Gara stated that ConocoPhillips earned $2.3
billion in profits on the North Slope in Alaska. He
wondered if BP's earnings were comparable.
Mr. Bilbao replied that the slide represented cash flow
rather than net income. In the oil and gas industry, a
considerable amount of capital depreciated leading to a
significant difference between net income and cash flow. He
was not permitted to disclose the net income or financials
for BP in Alaska.
Representative Gara replied that he had difficulty
believing that BP was not earning enough money in Alaska,
when the financial details were secret. He asked why it was
fair to the legislators to be asked to modify the tax
structure without full disclosure of financial information.
Mr. Bilbao replied that the evidence that business was
going elsewhere indicated that Alaska was not competitive.
He was not referencing BP's specific financial results, but
rather the global data, which reinforced the fact that
Alaska was not competing. He noted that the higher price of
oil ought to summarize the issue effectively.
2:02:40 PM
Representative Gara testified that he questioned BP during
HB 110 hearings two years ago, regarding BP's new
production units and the answer he received was that new
production would not be implemented by BP with the passing
of HB 110. He asked if BP had plans for new exploration and
units if HCS CSSB 21(RES) were to pass.
Mr. Bilbao replied no. He stated that BP would not embark
on any new exploration with the passage of HCS CSSB 21(RES)
because there was so much opportunity within the legacy
fields. Representative Gara asked how the comment that the
legacy fields were full of opportunity squared with the
statements that new production and new investment were tied
and new exploration was the key to an increase in
investment in Alaska.
Mr. Bilbao replied that if BP invested nothing, the fields
would decline at 20 percent. He stated that BP saw more
opportunities with the right fiscal environment. He wished
to provide examples where a more positive fiscal
environment led to more investment flowing to locations
other than Alaska.
2:05:23 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze wished for a differentiation between
exploration investment and production investment. Mr.
Bilbao responded that exploration included the review of
areas that had not yet been tested, drilled, explored or
developed. If a company had an opportunity with basic
seismic information, but had not yet drilled a well to
prove that oil could be found, was considered exploration.
The hope was that the risk would yield a higher reward.
Development occurred in areas where the oil was proven to
exist via exploration wells.
Co-Chair Stoltze imagined that different companies would
provide a different emphasis regarding the company and the
scope of their size and the nature of their business. Mr.
Bilbao replied that different companies had different
strategies for unique geographies. Each company could
choose a different blend of investment for their company
portfolios.
Co-Chair Stoltze wished to understand questions about
exploration. He wished to understand why one company might
have a greater emphasis on exploration than another.
2:08:24 PM
Mr. Bilbao appreciated the complexity of the topic. He
clarified that the legacy fields presented a unique
opportunity, but a large portion of the opportunities were
not economically competitive. He repeated that BP did not
need to drill leases outside of the legacy fields to find
additional oil. The company strove to develop the existing
resource in the most efficient way. He agreed that some
companies would seek new fields and pursue exploration as
part of their strategy in Alaska.
2:09:19 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked if BP explored in other
countries for new oil. Mr. Bilbao replied yes.
Representative Kawasaki asked which major countries BP
chose to explore for new oil. Mr. Bilbao replied that BP
explored in the United States, Indonesia, China and the
Gulf of Mexico. He noted that a broad portfolio of
opportunities existed throughout the world.
Representative Kawasaki revisited the statement regarding
the 2 billion barrels currently existing under the legacy
fields. He asked if the oil was considered new or old oil.
Mr. Bilbao replied that oil that had not yet been produced
was considered new oil. He stated that timing of production
might further define and classify oil as new or old.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the legislature and
governor were striving for a production curve that
increased rather than declined. He believed that policies
incentivizing new oil would change the declining production
curve. He wondered about new exploration and China and
Indonesia. He asked if there was current production in the
countries mentioned earlier, where exploration was
considered. Mr. Bilbao replied that BP shared the desire to
see increased production in Alaska because when the state
benefitted, BP benefitted. He responded to the second
question by stating that BP had Liquefied Natural Gas
Production in Indonesia, and a non-operated producing area
in China.
2:12:42 PM
Representative Kawasaki pointed to the barrel illustrated
in slide 8 and he noticed that the Alaska state revenue
represented a large portion of the barrel. He suggested
that drawing the depiction to scale might provide a more
fair assessment. Mr. Bilbao replied that the space between
the royalties illustrated a graphic representation, but the
intent was not to provide a disproportionate scale
representation of the split of the barrel.
2:13:48 PM
Representative Thompson asked about slide 8 and the
industry share. He requested a comparison of industry share
in Alaska to that in North Dakota or West Texas. Mr. Bilbao
replied that he did not have the information, but he
suggested asking the state's consultants.
Representative Wilson asked about how many projects were
analyzed at one time. She wondered how projects were
prioritized for the company. Mr. Bilbao responded that BP
had many opportunities. The economic nature of a project
enabled it to gain higher priority. He noted that BP
reviewed projects annually to determine whether
circumstances had changed and whether new technology or new
efficiencies had changed the economics of a project.
Mr. Bilbao noted that three things would alter the level of
investment for BP: efficiency, new technology and fiscal
policy. He explained that BP first reviewed whether the
efficiency or technology changed. The conversations
occurred locally and allowed the company to prioritize the
opportunities locally. He pointed out that the large scale
investment opportunities such as the additional rigs and
new pads competed globally for investment. He added that
the amount of global investment for BP was fixed and all
projects competed for the investment.
2:17:42 PM
Representative Munoz recalled testimony from BP and
ConocoPhillips in 2012 stating that $5 billion in projects
were potentially economic in Alaska with a change in the
tax structure. She asked how HCS CSSB 21(RES) might affect
the economic nature of projects in Alaska. Mr. Bilbao
replied that without a final bill to model, BP could not
recalibrate their economic model to provide the
information. He stated that HCS CSSB 21(RES) made Alaska
more competitive for investment, which would present the
opportunity for new projects to move forward.
2:19:23 PM
Mr. Bilbao discussed slide 9: "HCS CSSB 21(RES) versus
ACES."
ACES
· Progressivity discourages investors
· Links credits to spend
· Complex
· High base rate
HCS CSSB 21(RES)
· Eliminates progressivity
· Links credits to production
· Simpler
· Higher base rate balanced with credits
Mr. Bilbao determined that HCS CSSB 21(RES) had upside
opportunity.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if risk and reward should be viewed
by the committee as antonyms. Mr. Bilbao concurred and
stated that that the each investment opportunity presented
a risk and reward decision creating a very important
equation for BP's decision making process. He noted that
HCS CSSB 21(RES) made a policy decision to shift the link
from spend to production. He recognized that the shift
placed the burden onto the producer to deliver the
production in order to capture the benefit of the credit.
Mr. Bilbao stressed the complexity of ACES administration.
He noted volatility in the price of oil from month to month
could completely shift the cash flow profile. He claimed
that ACES made the process of running a business very
difficult. He noted that the higher base rate of HCS CSSB
21(RES) was balanced with the credits put in place.
2:22:21 PM
Mr. Bilbao discussed slide 10: "In Summary."
· TAPS is three quarters empty and ACES has not
delivered increased production
· HCS CSSB 21(RES) is a game changer and a signal that
Alaska is ready to compete for investment
· The HCS CSSB 21(RES) structure could work:
o Balances a high base rate with appropriate
credits
o Requires production to earn credits
o Doesn't pick winners and losers
o Provides a foundation for future opportunities
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the awareness of the public was
skewed as seen by a recent poll. The public's opinion about
oil flow through the pipeline was not consistent with the
data provided to the legislature. He added that the
public's opinion as communicated in the poll related to the
amount of the state budget derived from petroleum revenue
was also skewed. Mr. Bilbao did not receive the poll data
yet he agreed that the public was often surprised about the
impact of oil on the state's economy.
2:25:46 PM
Representative Gara asked about slide 4. He referred to the
"Fall 2012 Revenue Sources Book," page 35, with projected
capital expenditure figures of $3.36 billion for FY 13 and
$3.8 billion for FY 14. The "Fall 2007 Revenue Sources
Book," page 36 illustrated the FY07 historical figure of
$1.578 billion in FY 07 and a $3.26 billion forecast for
this year, which was a 100 percent increase. Next year's
forecast was documented as $3.8 billion for a 130 percent
increase. He couldn't understand why DOR provided
information displaying such an increase while the
information provided in the presentation (slide 4) depicted
flat capital expenditures.
2:26:46 PM
Mr. Bilbao stated that Econ One used slide 4 to illustrate
a comparison between Alaska and other jurisdictions,
providing an index of spend rather than an absolute. With
the comparison provided, Alaska remained flat whereas other
areas had increased.
Representative Gara asked if the bulk of the investment
increase was related to fracking technology and investment.
Mr. Bilbao answered that the technological progress
regarding shale and fracking led to a significant increase
in investment. He noted that conventional sources of oil
had also benefitted from increased investment and
production.
Representative Gara asked if the bulk of the increase in
spending in the Lower 48 was due to fracking investment.
Mr. Bilbao deferred the question to Econ One.
Representative Gara pointed out the elimination of the
progressivity element of the bill. The industry would
increase earnings with the elimination of progressivity and
he wondered about reinvestment in Alaska and out of state.
Mr. Bilbao stated that as new opportunities became
apparent, new investment would come to Alaska. He noted a
general consensus that progressivity was not working.
Progressivity limited the opportunities for Alaska to
compete for investment. Investment would flow toward the
best opportunities.
2:31:01 PM
Representative Gara asked if it was realistic to assume
that most of what the company would receive due to
progressivity's elimination would be spent in other areas
globally. Mr. Bilbao responded that if the fiscal policy in
Alaska became more attractive for investment, the company
would spend more in the state.
Representative Gara referred to a statement by Mr. Bilbao
on March 14 in the Senate Finance Committee. He wondered
why the testimony was different today regarding
progressivity. He quoted Mr. Bilbao as saying "we don't
feel that it goes far enough to attract the type of
meaningful investment that is required to make the future
look different from the last six or seven years." Mr.
Bilbao replied that HCS CSSB 21(RES) showed a different
combination of base rates and credits than the bill before
the Senate Finance Committee. He stated that the process
through the various committees led to HCS CSSB 21(RES) and
the new balance of base rates and credits was viewed as
attractive by BP.
Mr. Bilbao recalled that the Senate Finance Committee
version on the bill discussed on March 14th was a "35
percent and 5 fixed credit." Representative Gara concurred.
Mr. Bilbao pointed to a better balance of credits seen in
HCS CSSB 21(RES). He furthered that the base rate was
higher than it was under ACES, but BP had the opportunity
to offset the base rate, otherwise the balance was lost and
the bill would not provide the same incentive for
investment.
Representative Wilson wondered how many years the state
would wait to determine whether the bill would benefit
production. Mr. Bilbao replied that producers would
initially drill more with a more attractive investment
climate. Sizable capital investments, such as new pads
would follow and allow companies to drill more. He noted
that if the legislature was not satisfied, the policy would
be adjusted appropriately.
2:35:42 PM
Representative Wilson asked how many years until a shift in
activity would occur under the bill. Mr. Bilbao responded
that a shift should be seen in one to two years.
Representative Wilson asked about the credit shift. She
didn't understand why BP would spend money that did not
lead to production. She wondered how the current credits
differed from those in HCS CSSB 21(RES).
Mr. Bilbao replied that "you get what you incentivize." He
relayed that ACES provided a credit for spent. He mentioned
a long list of projects that were planned for the North
Slope. Many of the projects allowed for a 30 year plan,
which would be extended for another 30. The money spent did
not ensure new production, but instead ensured that the oil
produced was done so safely and efficiently. The plan
consumed billions of dollars of investment. He mentioned
that if BP did not invest in new drilling and rigs, a
decline of 20 percent would be expected in contrast to the
current 6-8 percent decline. He noted that BP ran 10-11
rigs annually, prior to ACES, and 6 rigs with ACES.
Representative Wilson was interested to know what
investment would occur with the new credits proposed in HCS
CSSB 21(RES). Mr. Bilbao replied that shifting to the
sliding scale of credits focused the analysis of
incremental production.
Co-Chair Austerman asked about the $8 sliding scale versus
the $5 fixed scale. He wondered if one was preferred. Mr.
Bilbao replied that the sliding scale existed because the
higher base rate claimed additional business below $100 per
barrel. Below $100 per barrel, a fixed $5 did not outweigh
the impact of raising the base rate. The sliding scale
would allow a credit to offset the impact of the base rate
below $100 per-barrel. As prices of oil increased, the
credit per-barrel decreased and made up the difference.
2:40:59 PM
Co-Chair Austerman discussed heavy oil. He wondered if a
change in the tax changed the technological issue of
drilling for heavy oil. Mr. Bilbao responded that the
change in tax structure would not alter the technology, but
would instead change BP's ability to hire people to work
the technology required to drill for heavy oil and also
allow enough light-oil to mix with the heavy oil for
transport.
Co-Chair Austerman asked if BP did not have the technology
available to drill for the heavy oil. Mr. Bilbao responded
that the technology was not available to produce and
transport the heavy oil down the pipeline in an economic
manner.
Co-Chair Austerman asked if it was possible to extract the
oil. Mr. Bilbao replied that BP had a successful pilot
program to produce heavy oil, but the scale required for
commercial quantities was unavailable.
2:43:16 PM
Representative Costello pointed to the life of a field. She
asked for an expansion on the remark that it was up to the
legislature to determine the speed of development. Mr.
Bilbao replied that additional wells would efficiently
extract oil from the ground. He noted that 100 well bores
would only produce so much oil.
Representative Costello asked if the company was
determining its decline rate. She understood that companies
would intentionally buy-down their tax rate. She wondered
about BP's focus on qualified capital expenditures with the
goal of achieving the desired tax rate.
Mr. Bilbao replied that the decline rate was not chosen by
BP. He stated that opportunities that were deemed economic
were pursued and the decline rate was secondary. The
typical decline rate was 6-8 percent.
2:46:27 PM
Representative Costello pointed to the presentation placing
Alaska last in line. She asked where HCS CSSB 21(RES) would
place Alaska. Mr. Bilbao responded that the bill would move
the state somewhere in the middle of the chart. He
explained that Alaska's operating costs presented
challenges with ACES, but HCS CSSB 21(RES) placed Alaska in
the middle for that category as well.
Representative Edgmon mentioned government-take and its
importance in investment making decisions. He knew that
government-take was not the only variable. He imagined that
other constraints would potentially undercut the linkage
between government-take and investment. He listed
constraints such as other global investments, pipeline
limitations and refiner capacity issues. Mr. Bilbao replied
that there was not an unlimited amount of money available
for global investment. He agreed that physical constraints
existed regarding equipment, crew and projects.
2:50:22 PM
Representative Edgmon asked about rumors that BP planned to
sell their Alaskan projects after the Deep Water Horizon
accident. Mr. Bilbao answered that BP met its financial
obligations related to the Deep Water Horizon accident
without an impact to its operating budget.
Representative Gara asked about the base rate. He stated
that the bill contained two base rates, one for new oil and
one for existing oil. He asked about the 33 percent rate,
which was the maximum rate at $150 per-barrel, while the
base rate was 25 percent. Mr. Bilbao disagreed. He
understood that the base rate was 33 percent, which was
then offset with a credit-per-barrel for the legacy fields,
which was on a sliding scale and linked to the price of
oil.
Representative Gara stated that 33 percent would not be
achieved below $150 per-barrel of oil. Mr. Bilbao answered
that Representative Gara was referencing the credit per-
barrel on the effective tax rate. He understood that the
base rate was 33 percent with the credit linked to the
amount of production. The legislature had the opportunity
to position Alaska appropriately.
Representative Gara clarified that the effective tax rate
increased first to 25 percent and then to 33 percent. Mr.
Bilbao answered that he could only read what the CS stated,
which was a base rate of 33 percent.
2:54:44 PM
AT EASE
3:03:28 PM
RECONVENED
SCOTT JEPSEN, VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, introduced himself and his
colleague. He outlined items he would address. He provided
a PowerPoint presentation titled "House Finance Committee
HCS SB 21" (copy on file). He began with slide 2: "Alaska
Decline Continues While Lower 48 Continues to Increase." He
explained the graph and noted that the black line on top
depicted Lower 48 production vs. time. The productions
corresponded to the Y axis on the left hand side of the
chart. The colored lines represented Texas, Alaska North
Slope, and North Dakota and they corresponded to the Y axis
on the right side of the graph.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the graphs in Mr. Jepsen's
presentation were a product of ConocoPhillips. Mr. Jepsen
replied that the source of the graphs was the U.S. energy
Information Administration.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the chart on slide 2
depicted ConocoPhillips' production. Mr. Jepsen replied no,
the graph depicted all oil production for the entire North
Slope, Texas, North Dakota and the entire Lower 48.
Mr. Jepsen stated that production had increased throughout
the U.S. significantly over the last five or six years and
was driven by technological advances. He pointed out
Alaska's downward trend. He commented on the rich resources
in the Lower 48 with the technology to produce both
conventional and unconventional opportunities. With good
oil prices investment was attractive. He noted that the
Lower 48 had a favorable tax environment.
Mr. Jepsen credited Alaska for its rich resources.
Technology was a key component to investment in Alaska. He
stated that investment was hampered on the North Slope by
the ACES tax environment.
Mr. Jepsen moved to slide 3: "Alaska Legacy Fields Still
Provide Significant Opportunity." The data source was the
Department of Revenue 2009 production forecast for the
years 2010 through 2050. The older forecast was used
because the department did not offer a similar type of
production forecast. He noted that the vast majority of the
remaining resource resided in the legacy fields.
3:09:16 PM
Mr. Jepsen turned to slide 4: "Easy Oil" In the Legacy
Fields is Gone:"
Challenged oil remains
· Complex, high cost wells
· Smaller reserve targets
· Isolated fault blocks, flank oil
· Satellites and viscous oil
· Most new wells produce oil and water
· Facilities handling ~three times as much water as
oil
A billion dollars does not go as far as it used to…
· 2000 alpine development: ~80,000 BOPD
· 2012 CD-5 Drillsite: ~18,000 BOPD
Mr. Jepsen explained that coil tubing drilling technology
was progressing. The technology provided a cost-effective
way to recover oil from isolated fault blocks. He explained
that existing well bores were utilized to drill horizontal
wells in an attempt to reach additional pockets of oil. He
mentioned the drilling of an octolateral well, which had
eight separate horizontal legs. The wells were complicated
and expensive.
Mr. Jepsen mentioned the development of satellites in
Kuparuk and Prudhoe Bay, which required vast new
infrastructure. He noted that development of oil around the
flanks of the field was another technological goal. Some
circumstances required new pads. He noted the extension of
the Kuparuk reservoir and the potential to further
development of the field. The particular development was
projected to take three years.
Mr. Jepsen mentioned that viscous oil was another
opportunity for ConocoPhillips on the North Slope. He
mentioned that multiple wells were producing both oil and
water as a function of the recovery techniques used. The
challenge of extracting both oil and water added to the
expense.
Mr. Jepsen informed the committee about cycle time. Cycle
time included the amount of time required to drill and
extract oil from a virgin site. He mentioned the CD-5 drill
site for Alpine.
3:15:52 PM
Mr. Jepsen spoke to costs (slide 4). He mentioned $1.4
billion spent on the initial Alpine development shown in
the upper right hand picture of the slide, which produced
approximately 80 thousand barrels per day. He pointed to
costs related to CD-5 that would cost approximately $1
billion to develop and yield 18 thousand barrels per day.
He stressed that the environment was cost challenged.
BOB HEINRICH, VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE, CONOCOPHILLIPS
ALASKA, addressed slide 5 related to the impact of ACES on
the company's investment. The bottom axis of the chart
related to the ANS West Coast oil prices and the vertical
axis pertained to the industry's marginal share. He
discussed the reason the state's share increased as price
increased (represented by the black line) because of
effective progressivity. He communicated that less than 20
percent of ConocoPhillips' earnings were retained by the
business. He noted that marginal share had the ultimate
impact on decisions made.
Mr. Heinrich moved to slide 6 titled "Earnings Per Barrel -
ConocoPhillips Alaska and State of Alaska." During the
period shown, earnings fluctuated between $21 and $25 per
barrel of oil. Oil prices had moved from $70 to about $110.
The company did not make much more as prices increased;
however the state's share increased approximately 90
percent. He stated that if the share between the state and
the industry was more evenly split, Alaska would be viewed
as more attractive. He made remarks related to the
company's earnings and discussed the taxes it had paid. He
stated that for every dollar it earned over $2 was paid in
taxes.
3:20:49 PM
Mr. Heinrich turned to slide 7, "ConocoPhillips Capital
Allocation" and discussed how the taxes impacted the
company's investment in the state. He shared that
ConocoPhillips had seen a flat budget over the past few
years in Alaska, while the Lower 48 saw a three-fold
increase in capital spending. He stated that the company's
dollars were following investment opportunities in oil rich
areas with attractive fiscal structures.
3:21:50 PM
Mr. Jepsen looked at slide 8: "Government Take
Competiveness." The slide had been presented by Mr. Bilbao
earlier in the meeting and was generated by PFC Energy. He
discussed government take competitiveness. He stated that
the bill before the committee would result in change, but
more competitiveness would make a larger shift.
Mr. Jepsen directed attention to slide 9 titled "Changes to
ACES to Improve Alaska's Investment Climate." He stated
that the elimination of progressivity was the bill's key
objective. The company's objectives included the
elimination of progressivity, the creation of a flatter tax
rate over a broad range of prices and the establishment of
a tax structure creating an attractive investment climate.
He stated that the bill had a slightly progressive tax
structure, but was a significant improvement over ACES. The
bill addressed tax increases at lower prices relative to
ACES and a hard minimum tax provided more revenue to Alaska
at low prices. The 33 percent base rate was an improvement
and the bill increased the likelihood that participating
area (PA) expansions would receive the Gross Value
Reduction (GVR).
Mr. Jepsen stated that ConocoPhillips believed that HCS
CSSB 21(RES) created an environment that would lead to
increased investment and additional production. He added
that ConocoPhillips reviewed HCS CSSB 21(RES) and believed
that investment decision making would change as a result of
the bill, but until the final legislation was available, he
could not commit to individual projects.
3:27:13 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if Mr. Jepsen planned to communicate
the changes in Alaska's tax structure to the company's
board members. He asked how the legislation would wedge
more capital. He asked about the company's hopes and
aspirations.
Mr. Jepsen relayed that geologists and engineers identified
initial project opportunities. The next step included
feedback from project engineers who would estimate the
project cost. A multi-year analysis would then be
conducted, analysts would look at cash flow and net income
to analyze the cost, and depending on the cost the decision
could either be made locally or at the highest company
level (board of directors).
Mr. Heinrich expounded that the company redefined its focus
on growing production and redefining margins at the
corporate level. He elaborated that the margin would be
increased through production growth and investment in
liquid rich oil plays around the world. He stressed that
Alaska was competitive for those higher margin
opportunities.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the bill represented a battering
ram or an Allen wrench. He wanted to understand the
significance of the legislation to ConocoPhillips.
3:31:45 PM
Mr. Jepsen replied that the bill represented a significant
change to the investment environment. He stated that ACES
provided a large barrier to investment in Alaska. He
pointed to slide 6 and noted that the data provided
summarized the difficulties presented by Alaska.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that geology alone did not
provide adequate incentive for industry investment. Mr.
Jepsen affirmed.
Representative Gara discussed public reports of
ConocoPhillips' profits in in Alaska for multiple years.
The reports depicted increases in profits that correlated
with the price of oil. He asked how Mr. Jepsen could defend
his statement that ConocoPhillips did not benefit from
higher prices of oil in Alaska. Mr. Jepsen replied that
while profit increased, the state share also increased. He
opined that the ratio between state and industry share was
disproportionate.
Representative Gara asked about the CD-5 unit and whether
it was an Alpine satellite. Mr. Jepsen replied that the CD-
5 unit was considered an Alpine drill site.
Representative Gara understood that the CD-5 project was
initiated during the ACES regime.
3:34:54 PM
Mr. Jepsen replied that the decision regarding the CD-5
development was made prior to the ACES regime.
ConocoPhillips remained optimistic that they would see ACES
changed.
Representative Gara pointed out that ConocoPhillips
proceeded with the CD-5 project despite the unknown fate of
the ACES regime. Mr. Jepsen replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara pointed to slide 2. He discussed the
shale play in the Lower 48 and its place in the increases
shown in the graph. He understood that conventional oil in
North Dakota and in Texas remained relatively flat. He
surmised that shale oil was the primary reason for
increased investment in the Lower 48. Mr. Jepsen replied
that maintenance of a flat production in conventional oil
was an accomplishment. He agreed that the increases were
largely seen in the conventional oil categories, but the
investment made in conventional oil could not be
trivialized.
Representative Gara referred to an article published in
Petroleum News that paraphrased executive vice-president
Matthew Fox stating that ConocoPhillips was committed to
spending $2.5 billion in Alaska over the next 5 years. He
asked about the accuracy of the statement.
Mr. Jepsen replied that in the context the statement was
accurate. He furthered that it was a continuation of the
company's existing level of activity. He stated that there
was a fairly long disclaimer that the company's investment
plan could change if the environment changed. He
appreciated the positive press for Alaska, but noted that
the situation could be even better if the tax environment
was altered.
3:39:31 PM
Representative Gara referenced a quote from an investor
conference from Senior Vice-President, Greg Garland in 2011
stating that Alaska had strong cash margins and good rates
of return. He wondered if the statements were accurate. Mr.
Heinrich responded that it was a matter of describing the
portfolio. With a portfolio that was predominately gas
production, the 95 percent revenues and margins generated
in Alaska did represent strong margins relative to a larger
portfolio. He added that the Lower 48 saw 70 percent gas
production, so the comparison with Alaska was not entirely
accurate. He agreed that the earnings in 2011 were in
excess of the corporate average.
Representative Gara spoke to the possibility of eliminating
progressivity and the potential for the state to face an
$800 million loss as a result. He asked if ConocoPhillips
would enter a contract costing $500 million with another
company that could not guarantee a response. Mr. Jepsen
replied that his company would still pay a significant tax
rate in Alaska. He clarified that his company could not
guarantee production in specific projects. He did believe
that the passage of HCS CSSB 21(RES) would lead to more
investment.
Representative Gara asked how much investment. Mr. Jepsen
replied that the investment decisions were outside of his
authority.
Representative Gara provided a scenario in which
ConocoPhillips handed over $500 million to another company
without commitment. He wondered if contracts of that nature
were common in the oil industry.
3:43:48 PM
Mr. Jepsen believed the issue was related to public and tax
policy. The right tax environment would yield more
investment.
Representative Gara spoke to the CD-5 deadlock. He wondered
if exploration would occur in additional units if the bill
passed. Mr. Jepsen responded that ConocoPhillips was
drilling an exploration-well in an attempt to maintain a
lease. He stated that ConocoPhillips was an active explorer
in Alaska. He mentioned federal land issues with the Alaska
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the National Petroleum
Reserve Alaska.
3:45:47 PM
Representative Costello noted that the company spent
millions of dollars with no commitment from mother earth to
yield oil. She wondered if the company could provide a
sense of the top criteria used when making investment
decisions.
Mr. Heinrich replied that there were multiple layers and
parameters involved. He pointed to a timeline and spoke to
a time when the company had spent capital dollars on gas
acquisitions. The world had changed for oil producers due
to the unconventional plays. The company was now focused on
oil production, which was valued greatly by the market. He
mentioned very high level strategies that companies would
focus on. He discussed an array of opportunities of NPVs,
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and long-term cash flow as
applied to Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries. The type of activities in
Alaska fit well with the current strategies.
Representative Costello asked about the cost of doing
business in Alaska.
3:50:04 PM
Mr. Jepsen answered that costs were significant in Alaska.
He pointed to a slide from PFC Energy related to average
costs of investment in Alaska versus the Lower 48. He
pointed to other environmental factors that made investment
challenging in the state.
Mr. Heinrich added that costs and timelines ultimately
comprised the metrics used. The types of items listed by
Mr. Jepsen factored into the decision.
Mr. Jepsen expounded that cash flow also played a part. He
noted that cash flow was compromised considerably under
ACES.
Representative Costello asked if the company would be
motivated to change its investment behavior if the
legislation passed. Mr. Jepsen replied that the company did
not "game" systems.
Representative Munoz asked about projects that had not
occurred after ACES had been implemented. Mr. Jepsen
pointed to a viscous oil project in North East West Sak
that would have required 100-plus wells. He mentioned that
BP also had a project that had not gone forward after ACES
was implemented.
Representative Munoz asked if the bill provided sufficient
incentive to increase investment. Mr. Heinrich answered
that the comments had been made when the tax was at 35
percent compared to the current 33 percent proposed in HCS
CSSB 21(RES).
Representative Kawasaki asked about the North East West Sak
project. He wondered if a change in ACES might allow the
project to proceed. Mr. Jepsen replied that technical
problems existed in the project and would be prioritized by
ConocoPhillips. He believed that a change in tax structure
would position the project to compete more favorably, than
if the change had not been made.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the company's
international investment. Mr. Jepsen did not believe the
company was invested in Sakhalin Russia, but he believed
the company was invested in the other areas worldwide.
Representative Kawasaki asked about investment in Libya.
Mr. Jepsen verified the company's investment in the
country.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the company's
involvement in extreme fiscal regimes. He expressed
curiosity about the company's decision to work in those
areas. Mr. Jepsen replied that there were many reasons the
country invested in those countries and many times it was
related to investment potential. Mr. Heinrich added that
ConocoPhillips was prevented for a number of years from
managing their assets in Libya, but had recently been
allowed to seek developing opportunities. Mr. Jepsen added
that Malaysia provided a high cash margin for the company.
3:58:44 PM
Representative Kawasaki pointed to slide 7 related to
Conoco's capital allocation. He referenced a recent article
related to investment and shale. He pointed to a different
article where the company's CEO wanted to invest in
opportunities in the Lower 48. He stated that it was
important for the legislators to see revenue come back to
the state in the form of production. He asked about the
company's strategy. Mr. Heinrich replied that cash margin
returns were significant in the Lower 48. The fiscal
environment for ConocoPhillips improved with those higher
cash margins.
Representative Kawasaki clarified that the cash flow earned
by ConocoPhillips in the Lower 48 was $40 to $50 while
Alaska offered $30. He asked if HCS CSSB 21(RES) would
bring Alaska to similar cash flows. Mr. Jepsen replied that
HCS CSSB 21(RES) would not provide Alaska the same cash
flow as other states. He pointed to various items that
impacted a company's investment decision. He stated that
the North Slope had not been built with money made in
Alaska. He believed there would be economic chaos if money
had to be constrained in the place it was made.
4:02:51 PM
Representative Wilson asked what would happen if North
Dakota chose to raise their taxes. Mr. Jepsen replied that
it would have a negative impact on additional investment in
North Dakota.
Representative Wilson asked how the company could ensure
the state that Alaskan's would be put to work. Mr. Jepsen
replied that the company's statistics pointed to 88 percent
of Alaska workforce, and 70 percent of operators on the
North Slope resided in Alaska. He believed the numbers were
good in comparison to other industries in the state. One of
the company's key objectives was to hire Alaskan workers.
Representative Wilson asked if a mandate was not needed to
ensure Alaska hire in HCS CSSB 21(RES). Mr. Jepsen did not
believe a mandate was necessary.
4:05:19 PM
Representative Wilson asked about slide 8. She wondered
which arrows on the slide addressed ConocoPhillips,
ExxonMobil and BP. He pointed to various arrows and how
they pertained to the data.
Representative Wilson asked if the company would move to
another arrow if classified as a new field. Mr. Jepsen
answered in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson asked if the state was giving money
to ConocoPhillips or taking less from them. Mr. Jepsen
responded that the change in tax structure took less money
from the company's earnings.
Representative Wilson encouraged the company to remember
gas production and its importance in Alaska.
Co-Chair Stoltze made a remark about local hire.
Representative Gara pointed to slide 8. He noted that many
other countries charged higher taxes than Alaska. Mr.
Jepsen replied that there were not very many, but there
were a handful.
Representative Gara asked about a premium the state should
receive for its safe geopolitical environment. Mr. Heinrich
replied that the political risk issue was difficult to
quantify. He discussed investment in Venezuela during a
period following nationalization in the country. He noted
that ConocoPhillips interest was in new heavy oil projects.
He explained that Venezuela had offered favorable royalty
relief and favorable income tax rates that created
attractive opportunities.
4:10:23 PM
Mr. Jepsen added that reserve replacement was a key element
of the business. The company required large global
opportunities to retain the key element. The issue was
whether the company could increase investment in Alaska.
Representative Gara noted that Venezuela did not have a
history of being a stable country. He stated that Alaska
had a royalty relief statute, which states that if the tax
rate prevented a new development, an application process
was available to allow a company to prove that the tax rate
deterred the development. He asked why the relief valve was
not utilized by ConocoPhillips. Mr. Jepsen noted that
royalty relief was not necessary to the company to increase
investment. The company's agenda was to reposition Alaska
to compete for capital.
Representative Gara appreciated that ConocoPhillips
reported their Alaska profits.
4:13:28 PM
AT EASE
4:33:21 PM
RECONVENED
DAN SECKERS, TAX COUNSEL, EXXONMOBIL, discussed the
"Testimony of ExxonMobil on Alaska's Investment Climate to
the Alaska House Finance Committee on April 8, 2013"(copy
on file).
4:35:23 PM
Mr. Seckers believed that HCS CSSB 21(RES) would make
Alaska more competitive, which would result in more work
for Alaska. He believed that the bill showed a strong
improvement over the ACES structure. He believed that HCS
CSSB 21(RES) improved Alaska's global investment climate.
He anticipated that industry would reexamine the inventory
of all North Slope investment opportunities once ACES was
reformed. He discussed the attractiveness of Alaska in
comparison to other opportunities. He expressed concern
regarding the connection of the sliding scale to price
aspect of HCS CSSB 21(RES). He believed that the base rate
in HCS CSSB 21(RES) was too high.
Mr. Seckers informed the committee that Alaska remained a
critical component to ExxonMobil's worldwide global
portfolio. He was committed to working with the governor
and the legislature to help Alaska reach its goal for more
production. The need for Alaska to develop a competitive,
attractive and stable fiscal regime was an important state
issue. He noted that HCS CSSB 21(RES) was a tremendous
improvement over ACES. He stressed the belief of
ConocoPhillips that if the legislation was enacted,
investment and activity would increase in the state.
4:38:43 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze recalled different tax regimes. He
understood that a company's bottom line was primary for the
company. He asked about ExxonMobil's unwillingness to
pinpoint a rate.
4:39:55 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that he wished to work toward tax
reform. Mr. Seckers stressed that the rate established
would not be perfect for everyone. He recommended that the
committee rely on information from consultants who provide
an independent and impartial view to the discussion. He was
encouraged by HCS CSSB 21(RES) and believed that it
provided a significant improvement over ACES.
4:40:55 PM
Representative Wilson asked about a lower base rate. She
expressed curiosity about how far the state might need to
drop to reach the level of a new oil field. Mr. Seckers
replied that PFC energy and Econ One were the experts on
the issue and he deferred the question to them.
Representative Wilson wished to know the presenter's
opinion. She stressed the importance of Alaskan hire and
asked how the company would address the issue. Mr. Seckers
replied that ExxonMobil strived to hire locally. He noted
that the Pt. Thompson activities required local hire as
part of the corporate policy.
4:43:17 PM
Representative Gara asked about ExxonMobil's investment in
shale plays in North Dakota. Mr. Seckers replied that
ExxonMobil had a subsidiary known as XTO Energy that was
active in the unconventional Lower 48 plays.
Representative Gara sensed that the tax rate could never be
low enough. He pointed out that North Dakota was often
portrayed as an ideal tax environment. He recalled a recent
effort in North Dakota to lower taxes because the oil
companies had deemed them uncompetitive. He asked if
ExxonMobil supported the tax reduction in North Dakota. Mr.
Seckers replied that he did not know.
Representative Gara understood that the company's profits
would not be shared with the committee. Mr. Seckers replied
that investment information was confidential.
Representative Gara requested profit information from
ExxonMobil for Alaska. Mr. Seckers replied that his company
provided information through DOR regarding activities and
investments in the state, but the information was taxpayer
confidential.
Representative Gara asked how the legislature could
evaluate claims that ExxonMobil was not earning enough
profit in Alaska if the information regarding profit
margins was confidential. Mr. Seckers replied that the
consultants had demonstrated that Alaska was not
competitive.
4:46:17 PM
Representative Gara recalled testimony from another
representative of ExxonMobil that profits were comparable
to those of ConocoPhillips. He asked if the information was
applicable today. Mr. Seckers replied that he had no reason
to doubt that the information would be applicable today.
Representative Gara asked about the effort to reduce taxes
if the state wished to see new oil. He asked if ExxonMobil
would embark on new exploration with new units in Alaska if
HCS CSSB 21(RES) was passed.
4:48:06 PM
Mr. Seckers replied that a lease sale encouraged activity.
He stated that ExxonMobil explored every opportunity for
new oil extraction from the legacy fields. He suggested
that "wildcatting" was not in the near-term plan, but an
increase of activity was a priority.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for a definition of wildcatting. Mr.
Seckers replied that wildcatting referred to new entrant's
exploration in remote areas.
Representative Gara requested commitment to new projects
that HCS CSSB 21(RES) would encourage for ExxonMobil. Mr.
Seckers replied that Pt. Thompson was progressing well and
the company would pursue all competitive and attractive
investments.
4:50:42 PM
Representative Gara asked if the investments were
competitive and attractive, would ExxonMobil invest. He
recalled Mr. Seckers' earlier statement that the fiscal
regime was not attractive enough as stated in HCS CSSB
21(RES).
Mr. Seckers clarified that ExxonMobil saw HCS CSSB 21(RES)
as a tremendous improvement over ACES that would lead to
investment increases in Alaska.
4:51:32 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked how industry viewed the risk
assessment of the state. He had been advised that changing
tax structures frequently was unwise for Alaska. He
discussed the decline rate of approximately 40 thousand
barrels per day and the impact that had on the state's
budget. He noted that operating costs in Alaska would
continue to increase despite the reduction in oil
production.
4:53:21 PM
Mr. Seckers replied that ExxonMobil would view stability
seriously. The more stable the environment, the easier it
is to measure investments against it. He agreed that the
decline scenario was a reality and that ExxonMobil hoped to
help arrest. He stressed that stability was critical when
making investment decisions.
Representative Wilson asked about the credit portion of the
bill. She asked how the changes in HCS CSSB 21(RES) would
change decisions. Mr. Seckers appreciated the balance
sought by HCS CSSB 21(RES). He stated that tax credits had
a different economic impact on investments. ExxonMobil
reviewed the fiscal regime and other criteria when making
investment decisions. Investments would be measured along
with the credits to determine how competitive and
attractive they could be.
4:55:52 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the credits were viewed as
positive or negative by ExxonMobil. Mr. Seckers replied
that HCS CSSB 21(RES) was simpler than ACES because of the
uncertainties and variables. He expressed concern regarding
a link between investment incentives to price. When the
prices increased the dynamic of the evaluation would
change.
Representative Wilson asked how he would incentivize the
additional production in Alaska. Mr. Seckers replied that
the answer was a difficult one because it was up to the
state to determine their level of competitiveness. He
recommended asking the unbiased state consultants.
4:58:19 PM
Representative Wilson stated that she wished to ask the
question of the industry. She hoped to have the ideal
development scenario presented for debate in the committee.
Mr. Seckers observed that an adjustment of the base rate
would aid in the state's competitiveness.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated the issue.
CSSB 21(FIN) am (efd fld) was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 18(FIN) am
"An Act making, amending, and repealing
appropriations, including capital appropriations,
supplemental appropriations, reappropriations, and
other appropriations; making appropriations to
capitalize funds; and providing for an effective
date."
CSSB 18 (FIN) am was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
ADJOURNMENT
4:59:27 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 21 EXXON alaska's Investment Climate Under ACES - Testimony Before House Finance - 4-8-2013.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| SB 21 Conoco Phillips House Finance COP Testimony 2013-04-8 v4.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| SB 21 4-08-13 BP- slides for House Finance.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| SB 21 Conoco Phillips House Finance COP Testimony 2013-04-8 v4.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| SB 21 Gara Handout.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| SB 7 - Sponsor Statement H FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 7 |
| SB 7 - Backup Doc DOR 2012 Annual Report - Figure 1.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 7 |
| SB 7 - Backup Doc DOR 2012 Annual Report - Figure 1.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2013 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/9/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 7 |
| SB 7 - Backup Doc LRS Report Ak Corp Income Tax Revenues.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2013 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/9/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 7 |
| SB 7 - Letters of Support H FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2013 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/9/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 7 |