Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/09/2018 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority | |
| HB331 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 331 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 9, 2018
2:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative John Lincoln, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative George Rauscher
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Chris Tuck (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 331
"An Act establishing the Alaska Tax Credit Certificate Bond
Corporation; relating to purchases of tax credit certificates;
relating to overriding royalty interest agreements; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT
AUTHORITY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 331
SHORT TITLE: TAX CREDIT CERT. BOND CORP; ROYALTIES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/07/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/18 (H) RES, FIN
03/30/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/30/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/04/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/04/18 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/06/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/06/18 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/07/18 (H) RES AT 2:00 PM BARNES 124
04/07/18 (H) -- Continued from 4/6/18 --
04/09/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KENDRA ZAMZOW PhD, Environmental Geochemist
Center for Science in Public Participation
(No local address provided), Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Testimony on Ambler Mining District Industrial Access
Road," dated 4/6/18, and answered questions.
GENE THERRIAULT, Team Lead
Interior Energy Project
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during testimony on the
Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Project.
MIKE BARNHILL, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-Provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Company X Tax Credits: Potential Impact of
HB331/SB176," revised 4/18/18, and answered questions during the
hearing of HB 331.
KEN ALPER, Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-Provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Company X Tax Credits: Potential Impact of
HB331/SB176," revised 4/18/18, and answered questions during the
hearing of HB 331.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:04:18 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:04 p.m. Representatives Tarr,
Parish, Talerico, Rauscher, and Josephson were present at the
call to order. Representatives Birch, Johnson, Lincoln, and
Drummond arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority
PRESENTATION(S): Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority
2:05:05 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would
be further testimony on the [Ambler Mining District Industrial
Access Project (Ambler Access Project)]. The project was first
presented by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority (AIDEA), Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development, at the committee meeting on 4/6/18.
2:06:08 PM
KENDRA ZAMZOW, PhD, Environmental Geochemist, Center for Science
in Public Participation, informed the committee she is a 30-year
resident of Alaska. Dr. Zamzow said the Center for Science in
Public Participation is a nonprofit and her role there is to
review technical documents on mining projects and identify
potential risks for communities and Tribes. She said she
concluded, from her review of the Ambler Access Project to date,
it is too soon for the state to invest in infrastructure to
support the project, because exploration in the Ambler Mining
District has not achieved a level of confidence that mining can
be conducted profitably. The conclusion is based on the
following:
• deposits have not been identified as measured resources or
proven reserves, which would provide a level of certainty
that mining could be profitable
• drilling has been limited and extensive drilling is needed
to define an ore body
• only one company is exploring the area of known deposits
DR. ZAMZOW acknowledged the region has known deposits of copper
and zinc; however, the costs of mining said deposits are
unknown, and therefore, the profitability of mining is also
unknown. She said the early stage of exploration showed rich
deposits in the district, and the middle stage of exploration
will reveal more about the ore body (slide 1). Language used
when mining companies report to investors reflects the
profitability of a mine; for example, rich ore means a mineral
resource, and increasing levels of confidence in the ore body
are reported as inferred, indicated, and measured resources. To
date, there are no measured resources - which would reflect high
confidence - found in the Ambler Mining District. She explained
the term "mineral resources" reflects a level of confidence in
the ore body, and the term "mineral reserves" reflects
confidence the ore body can be mined profitably. Furthermore,
reserves reflect economic costs such as infrastructure, water
treatment, and closure. She characterized the Arctic Mine
deposit as a massive sulfide deposit containing geochemistry
that would increase the cost of the mine's closure, and also
affect the profitability of the mine. The term "reserves" are
either proven [higher level] or probable [lower level], and the
Arctic Mine deposit prefeasibility study, released on 4/6/18,
reported probable mineral reserves. She stated her first
concern is that after the state pays for the road without proven
mineral reserves, mining may not occur, and directed attention
to a disclaimer required on reports issued by mining companies
(slides 2 and 3). She remarked:
[The disclaimer] indicated mineral resources, which is
what we have right now, from the drilling at Arctic,
may or may not ever be upgraded to the measured, which
is the high confidence level.
DR. ZAMZOW continued to her second concern and noted between 2004
and 2017, less than 100 boreholes were drilled at the Arctic
deposit and less than 60 were drilled at the Bornite deposit;
however, hundreds more are necessary to define the ore bodies.
Slide 4 was four graphs which illustrated how drilling boreholes
infers information to define the ore body and she explained,
"you can go from what you had hoped might be a very large
resource [that] could end up to be somewhat scattered, and that
really changes how mining could occur, whether mining would be
profitable, and how it would be done. For instance, whether it
would be surface or underground." The Donlin project site,
[Placer Dome Inc.], reached a high level of confidence after
five years of exploration, and during 2006-2008, NovaGold
continued drilling two hundred boreholes per year. At the
Pebble Mine site, [Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.] identified
five billion pounds of measured resources within three years of
exploration and drilled an average of one hundred thirty-five
boreholes per year between 2002-2008. She advised the
aforementioned levels of exploration are needed to determine
whether an ore body can become a mine, and to provide the
geotechnical information needed to design a mine and a tailings
facility. She restated her second concern about the slow rate
of exploration [at the Arctic Mine site]. Slide 5 illustrated
the four mine deposit sites identified by AIDEA in the Ambler
Mining District, as follows: Arctic and Bornite are being
developed by Trilogy, and Sun and Smucker appear to have no
activity. Dr. Zamzow reviewed the following key points (slide
6):
• rich ore does not make a mine and limited drilling has not
produced a sufficiently high level of confidence in any of
the mine sites in the Ambler Mining District
• the state should wait for confidence levels of measured
resources and proven reserves
2:15:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the mine would go forward.
DR. ZAMZOW opined it would not go forward in the near future,
but "several decades from now, that's certainly a possibility."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for the presenter's qualifications
and the motivation behind her testimony.
DR. ZAMZOW informed the committee she holds a degree in
environmental chemistry with a focus in biogeochemistry, which
is the study of trace metals and mining. For the last ten years
she has reviewed the geology and hydrology of ore bodies,
looking for potential risks, which vary with individual mines.
Her testimony is based on work that was completed at the request
of the Brooks Range Council, and her time to testify today was
paid by The Wilderness Society. The Center for Science in
Public Participation is supported by a mix of grant money and
clients.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH pointed out the Ambler Access Project is a
road project that has been compared to the Delong Mountain
Transportation System (DMTS), and inquired as to Dr. Zamzow's
observations specifically related to the road.
DR. ZAMZOW stated the mining issues are raised due to her
concern that the road may not be paid for if there are no mines;
because mining is speculative at this point, the state should
wait to provide a road.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN advised the state would not invest or
authorize bonds without exercising due diligence. Further, a
level of investment, exploration, and an environmental impact
statement (EIS) are facets of [the legislative] process. He
questioned the urgent need to advocate for "something that
strikes me as being pretty obvious ...."
2:19:48 PM
DR. ZAMZOW expressed her understanding AIDEA is moving forward
with EIS - potentially to fund a pioneer road, at a cost of $300
million - without definite confidence in ore bodies, and that
would be a waste of money. A road to a port is an entirely
different situation, but for a road that would be repaid by
mines, it is important to determine whether there will be mines
accessed by the road.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN urged for further testimony at the
appropriate time.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked what proportion of mines have a low
level of activity prior to opening, and if the road were built,
how would access affect the likelihood the [Arctic] mine would
open.
2:21:59 PM
DR. ZAMZOW said she did not have enough information to determine
whether a mine would open or not and discussed the history of
three other mines. Background information on the Red Dog Mine
is limited, although it is known the mine progressed from its
first drill hole to mine operations in 13 years; in contrast,
NovaCopper and Trilogy have been drilling in the Arctic Mine
exploration area for over 16 years. At the NovaGold operation
at Galore Creek [in British Columbia, Canada] 700 holes were
drilled before indicated and measured resources were located,
and there were 400 drill holes without reaching measured
resources at Rock Creek [in Nome, Alaska]. Exploration at the
Rock Creek Mine located approximately 20-30 million tons of
"indicated" which is roughly equal to what has been located at
"Ambler." The Rock Creek Mine operated for two months before
closing for various reasons. Dr. Zamzow opined several hundred
drill holes are needed to define the ore body and that could
take another decade. She restated her concern is about the
state investing in EIS at this stage.
2:24:37 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised Dr. Zamzow's position is that the EIS
process is premature and the state should wait until mining
companies reach the exploration results of measured resources.
DR. ZAMZOW said that would be wise.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN inquired as to the total cost estimated
for EIS.
DR. ZAMZOW said she did not know.
2:25:19 PM
GENE THERRIAULT, Team Lead, Interior Energy Project, AIDEA,
DCCED, was unsure what has been expended to date; however, a
previous legislative appropriation has been spent on assuming
the project from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
scoping meetings, and documents prepared by other agencies. In
addition, AIDEA requested consultants provide estimates of the
cost to advance the project to a record of decision (ROD), which
he estimated at $1 million. The question for policymakers is to
consider how much has been invested, and whether the value of
the funds expended is greater if the project continues to ROD,
although continuing to ROD does not guarantee the road project
would advance. He corrected a critical misstatement heard by
the committee on 4/6/18 by directing attention to [AS 44.88.120.
Nonliability On Bonds.], which prohibits AIDEA from obligating
the state and specifies that bonds issued by AIDEA do not
constitute an indebtedness or other liability of the state, or
of a political subdivision of the state. Mr. Therriault advised
AIDEA provided money to determine whether the Ambler Access
Project could be permitted; if so, AIDEA would not spend state
money without a legislative appropriation and would not issue
bonds without a business plan to ensure the users of the road
pay back the bond indebtedness. The mission of AIDEA is to
facilitate projects' access to the bond market without
obligating the state.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN surmised an additional $1 million is
needed to finish EIS.
MR. THERRIAULT estimated there are $2 million to $3 million left
in the original appropriation and offered to provide more
detailed information.
2:29:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN observed AIDEA garners about $20 million
per year as earnings from DMTS, which represents 40 percent of
its profits and 80 percent of its bonding capacity. He stressed
approximately $2 million invested to finish EIS on a project
that is extremely important to his constituents, and other
Alaska residents, is more than warranted -- especially when
AIDEA earns over $20 million per year from one road in Northwest
Alaska.
MR. THERRIAULT affirmed DMTS has been a very good project for
the state; AIDEA has repaid all the original capitalization plus
almost $400 million. He restated AIDEA - without using general
fund dollars - provides access to other people's money and is an
economic engine for the state.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked for the amount of the appropriation in the
FY 12-FY 13 budget for the Ambler Mining District Access portion
of former Governor Sean Parnell's Roads to Resources initiative.
MR. THERRIAULT will provide the requested information.
HB 331-TAX CREDIT CERT. BOND CORP; ROYALTIES
2:32:24 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 331, "An Act establishing the Alaska Tax
Credit Certificate Bond Corporation; relating to purchases of
tax credit certificates; relating to overriding royalty interest
agreements; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH related his and his constituents' support
of the bill which would honor the state's commitments and
positively affect the state's economy. He urged the committee
to act expeditiously.
The committee took a brief at ease.
2:35:12 PM
MIKE BARNHILL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR),
directed attention to two slides entitled, "COMPANY X Tax
Credits: Potential Impact of HB331/SB176." He informed the
committee the slides are examples of the estimates DOR provided
to each tax credit holder; however, the figures provided on the
slides are de-identified and thus do not represent any one of
the 37 companies who hold tax credit certificates. One slide
reflects figures for fiscal year 2019 (FY 19) through FY 24, and
the second slide reflects figures for FY 19 through FY 31.
2:36:50 PM
KEN ALPER, Director, Tax Division, DOR, explained the purpose of
the slides is to show how a company with $50 million in 2016
credits and $50 million in 2017 would be paid off. The slide
illustrating figures for FY 19-FY 24 was prepared as if HB 331
was enacted; the slide illustrating figures for FY 19-FY 31 was
prepared as if HB 331, amended to fund a smaller, alternative
appropriation, was enacted.
2:37:53 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:37 p.m. to 2:39 p.m.
2:39:32 PM
MR. ALPER restated the slides are a hypothetical example of
information that was twice provided by DOR to each of the 37
impacted companies. He first directed attention to the slide
illustrating figures for FY 19-FY 24 and gave an example of a
company with $50 million in the "first pool" of 2016 credits and
$50 million in the "second pool" of 2017 credits. If $184
million were appropriated in FY 19, it would represent about 45
percent of the $400 million in total 2016 tax credits, and
credit holders would be paid approximately $0.45 on each $1.
Thus, the example company would be eligible for $23 million in
FY 19; in FY 20, a statutory appropriation of $168 million would
pay an additional 40 percent, and the example company would get
$21 million. The FY 21 appropriation of $168 million would be
split to pay off the last of the 2016 credits and the first of
the 2017 credits. Further, FY 22 and FY 23 appropriations would
continue to pay off the example company's share of the 2017
pool, as affected by the number of years the discounts rates are
applied, until FY 24. Mr. Alper said the columns on the slides
labeled Face Value show what the example company expects to get
paid; the columns labeled Discount Rates show the money the
example company would receive under the terms of HB 331 and HB
331, amended. He concluded the example company, depending on
its discount rate, would be offered either $85 million or $91
million if it chose to relinquish $100,000 million in credits
and participate in the program. He directed attention to the
slide illustrating figures for FY 19-FY 31 and explained the
figures on this slide reflect a forthcoming amendment which
would lower the appropriation schedule and base the schedule on
a percentage of the actual taxes received, rather than the "raw"
tax calculations, thus the appropriations would be in the $40
million to $60 million range. The example company would not
receive 2016 credits until FY 25-FY 26, due to more years
affected by its discount rate. In this situation, the credit
holders would receive dramatically less, and the state would
borrow less.
2:44:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked, "Which of these two scenarios,
would you say, more accurately reflects, or more closely
reflects, the net present value of these credit assets to the
companies?"
MR. ALPER stated the credit holders' internal economics and
valuing are unknown to DOR; however, he expressed his belief the
companies are anticipating a statutory appropriation, similar to
what the state has appropriated in the last two years.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH surmised the tax credit holders are
amenable to [the proposals shown on both slides].
MR. ALPER recalled testimony from a representative of one of the
banks that holds debt that is guaranteed by the tax credits owed
to one of the credit holders: from the bank's perspective, the
reduced appropriation schedule would enable a company to pay off
its debt to the bank. However, from the perspective of the
company, a reduced appropriation would not repay the company
that did the [exploration] work, and he provided an example.
Mr. Alper said, "So, I think you would get a different answer if
you had a representative of the actual explorer up here, rather
than their banker." In further response to Representative
Parish, he said the companies [holding tax credit certificates]
would like an amount that would enable them to continue in
business.
MR. BARNHILL restated the administration is seeking a fair
balance between various interests through its introduction of HB
331; however, if the forthcoming amendment were to be adopted,
HB 331 would no longer be fair. He remarked:
We're trying to find a way, not only to clear the
decks, but clear the decks in a way that accomplishes
a variety of purpose. Paying off the tax credit
holders is certainly one of those purposes, but, just
as important, is attempting to reestablish the state's
credibility, with respect to the oil and gas industry.
And restore ... Alaska, in the perspective of the oil
and gas industry, as a place to come and invest money
....
2:49:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed support for HB 331 as introduced.
He asked how many businesses are impacted by the inability of
the state to fulfil its obligation to pay the tax credits.
MR. ALPER said there are 37 companies - approximately 20 of
which received cash in 2017 for pro rata shares of 2016 credits
- that have credits. There are new companies with 2017 credits,
some of which are very small and received $10,000 or less, such
as some of the working interest partners within the Point
Thomson Unit.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH observed the affected businesses are
largely Alaska businesses with Alaskan employees. He returned
attention to the discount rates shown on the slides and noted
one tier would incentivize investment in Alaska and restore
Alaska's credibility.
MR. ALPER expressed his hope that both discount rates would help
restore Alaska's credibility; the lower rate rewards
reinvestment because to qualify for the lower rate a company
would have to spend all of its appropriation on "qualified
capital expenditures" - which are capital expenditures upstream
of the point of production in its oilfields - within the next
two years. He provided an example.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH restated his support for the bill.
2:53:28 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised the forthcoming amendment may cause
[small, independent, oil and gas industry businesses] to either
sell their assets under the current statute or suffer
foreclosure.
MR. BARNHILL agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH gave an example of a small multimillion-
dollar oil and gas company with a marginal oilfield and asked
whether said company could be prevented from "agreeing to an
overriding royalty interest and then pulling up stakes the next
year."
MR. ALPER stated if that were the intent, the company would be
lying to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) because the
overriding royalty interest is a negotiated agreement.
2:55:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH moved Amendment 1, labeled 30-GH2863\A.2,
Nauman, 4/6/18, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 13, line 14:
Delete "before the application of any tax
credits"
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH explained Amendment 1 would return the
language in HB 331 to the current statutory language, which does
not make any reference to the application of tax credits, and
would give DOR the option to follow a repayment schedule based
on actual taxes received. Amendment 1 would reduce the risk to
the state, reduce the amount of debt incurred by the state, and
bring appropriations closer to the real market value of the
assets. Further, Amendment 1 would constrain subsidies paid to
multinational interests.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his opposition to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned whether this was another
situation in which "they roll the dice again and invest in
Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said, "... they decided to invest in
Alaska, sure, they, presumably read their, their contracts, I
certainly hope that they did. I have nothing but respect for
people and their ability to serve their rational self-interest.
Where it gets murky is when you start moving around other
people's money." He assured the committee [HB 331] contemplates
spending - not the oil industry's money because tax credits [are
not money] - money that belongs to the people of Alaska.
Further, Amendment 1 would balance the interests of the industry
with those of Alaska in an equitable way.
2:59:52 PM
MR. BARNHILL recalled the original intent of the tax credit
program was for the state to invest alongside the oil and gas
industry to expand the exploration and development of oil and
gas resources. [HB 331] seeks to create a cycle of new
investment and new production that would result in new revenue
to the state for the benefit of its citizens; however, Amendment
1 signals industry that Alaska is not competitive with other oil
and gas basins around the world. He urged the committee to
consider the long-term ramifications of Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted several of the state's current problems,
that are related to the tax credit program, may have been
avoided. She said her concern is if the state's financial
situation does not improve, and HB 331 is enacted - because
nonpayment of debt secured by bonding would downgrade the
state's financial position - payments on the bonds would be
elevated and prioritized over other programs such as healthcare
and education.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO related he had considered offering an
amendment, however, he carefully reviewed previous testimony on
the bill presented by representatives of the Department of Law
and DOR. After revisiting Sections 3-11, he stated his
preference to move the bill, without amendments, to the House
Finance Committee for further review and additional expert
testimony.
3:04:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH withdrew Amendment 1. Representative
Parish moved Amendment 2, labeled 30-GH2863\A.3, Nauman, 4/9/18,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 6, line 25:
Delete "1.5"
Insert "two"
Page 13, line 24:
Delete "of 10 percent a year"
Insert "based on the true interest cost plus
seven percent"
Page 13, lines 29-30:
Delete "1.5 percent and is less than ten percent
applies each year"
Insert "two percent"
Page 14, lines 3-4:
Delete "1.5 percent and is less than ten percent
applies each year"
Insert "two percent"
CO-CHAIR TARR objected.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH cautioned HB 331 exposes the state to a
good degree of risk. If the state's true cost of interest
rises, that would erode the incentive for companies to
participate in the proposal, and for meeting the four
requirements for a discounted rate. He pointed out if the
distance between the higher discount rate and the state's rates
close, it will reduce the incentive to reinvest in Alaska.
Amendment 2 would also increase the differential that covers the
state's risk, in the event of a drop in oil prices, by
increasing the difference to the true cost of borrowing from 1.5
percent to 2 percent.
3:07:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for an assessment of Amendment 2 by
the representatives from DOR.
MR. BARNHILL advised the first change brought by Amendment 2
increases the "cushion" from 1.5 percent to 2 percent. He said
Amendment 2 does not provide additional protection to the state
if there is a drop in the price oil; in fact, the 1.5 percent
added to the true interest cost is designed to replicate the
state's opportunity cost of capital, which is about 5 percent,
and reflects the rate of earnings garnered from earnings reserve
accounts, general funds, and the constitutional budget reserve.
He opined 1.5 percent is sufficient for the purpose of HB 331
due to the long-term nature of the bill. The second change made
by Amendment 2, which would increase the default discount rate
for participants, is not an issue of protecting the state, but
is "tipping that balance more in the state's favor. We picked
10 percent intentionally to, kind of, be a median point if you
will. ... We'd prefer not to do that at this point in time."
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated a drop in the price of oil would
dramatically affect the state's opportunity cost by changing the
schedule of repayment under the existing statute.
3:11:29 PM
MR. ALPER remarked:
I think what Representative Parish is referring to is
we're sort of locking in the payment schedule at the
bonding moment. We are going to make them a one-time
offer, we're going to give them a bunch of money based
on what the schedule of payments would be if our
spring 2018 forecast comes in true. If, in fact, the
price of oil is lower ... that schedule would decline,
and those companies would actually be getting less, so
they'd be benefitting, so to speak, from the structure
in the bill. Likewise, if the price of oil were to be
higher than forecasted in the spring, they would be
losing out by taking the offer at this point cause it
turned out the scheduled payments would have been
higher than anticipated. So yes, to the extent that
is true, it's exaggerated a little bit by increasing
the, the interest rate, the, the spread.
[HB 331 was held over.]
3:12:28 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting of the House Resources Standing Committee was
recessed at 3:11 p.m., to be continued April 10, 2018, at 8:00
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB331 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Version A.PDF |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Fiscal Note -DNR-DOG 1.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 2.5.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Supporting Document - Presentation Credit Bonds for HRES 3.30.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Supporting Document - DOR.LAW 3.2.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Sectional Analysis 3.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 3.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Credit Bonds for HRES 4-2-18.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 331 |
| AOGA Testimony - HB 331 - 4.4.2018.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 331 |
| HB 331 Amendment One - A.2 - Rep. Parish 4.6.18.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| Ambler CSPP invited testimony.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler CSPP PPT.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_AIDEA statutes re Regional Resource Advisory Council review.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_APRN article 1.30.18.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_Cardno econ analysis excerpts.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_AIDEA PPT.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_Clarke invited testimony.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_Clarke PPT.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_DOWL AIDEA Cost Estims 2.26.18.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_DOT May 2012 Report, Excerpt.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_Doyon ltr to BLM 1.24.18.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_Trilogy Metals PPT.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_Trustees' Follow-up Letter to BLM re Leg Hearing.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Allakaket Opposition Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Ambler Opposition Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Bettles Opposition Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Evansville Opposition Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Huslia Opposition Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Kobuk Opposition Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Kotzebue Opposition Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Koyukuk Opposition Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Louden Opposition Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Rampart Opposition Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_v_Ruby Opposition Resoulution.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_WIRAC 2017 Letter.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
AMDIAR |
| Ambler_APRN article 1.30.18.pdf |
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
Ambler AMDIAR |
| HB 331 Amendment Two - A.3 - Rep. Parish 4.9.18.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 theoretical 100m company.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Ambler_AIDEA bonds are not an indebtedness or liability of the state.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HRCHearingResponse_041218.pdf |
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |