Legislature(2011 - 2012)BUTROVICH 205
02/07/2012 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Gleason Decision of 12/30/2011 by Robin O. Brena | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 7, 2012
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Joe Paskvan, Co-Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: GLEASON DECISION OF 12/30/2011 REGARDING THE ASSESSED
VALUATIONS OF THE TRANS ALASKA PIPELINE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
ROBIN BRENA, Attorney
Brena, Bell, and Clarkson, P.C.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on the
Gleason Decision.
CRAIG RICHARDS, Attorney
Walker and LeBreck
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on the
Gleason Decision.
ACTION NARRATIVE
^Overview: Gleason Decision of 12/30/2011 by Robin O. Brena
OVERVIEW: GLEASON DECISION OF 12/30/2011 REGARDING THE ASSESSED
VALUATIONS OF THE TRANS ALASKA PIPELINE
3:33:06 PM
CO-CHAIR JOE PASKVAN called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators French, Stedman, McGuire, Wielechowski, Co-
Chair Paskvan and Co-Chair Wagoner. He noted that Senator
Giessel was also present.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN announced that the committee would continue
with the testimony of Mr. Robin Brena and Mr. Craig Richards who
will summarize key points regarding market structure on Alaska's
North Slope and then present information on the life of the
Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAPS), with a focus on the price of ANS
crude, reserves, and minimum mechanical throughput.
SENATOR STEVENS joined the committee.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN noted that Mr. Brena and Mr. Richards would be
testifying as Alaska residents, not as paid representatives of
clients.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN shared a memo entitled "Meeting the Governor's
Goal of Increasing Oil and Gas Production by 3 Percent a Year",
written a decade ago by the director of the Division of Oil and
Gas. He referred to the massive volume of information regarding
oil and gas production. He recalled the topic of yesterday's
presentation - the North Slope's integrated market structure -
which magnified the significance of the memo of nearly a decade
ago.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN quoted from the memo:
Mergers and market concentration on the North Slope
have created a non-competitive environment in which
three majors have a near monopoly that gives them a
large competitive advantage in exploration,
development, production, and transportation. It is
this uneven playing field that has raised the barrier
to new entrants from smaller independents to large
integrated majors. As long as these majors invested
sufficient capital for exploration and development
activities, the state accepted the consequence of the
oligopoly. Since the existing majors no longer are
willing to invest sufficient resources on exploration
or development, the state must look elsewhere. The
state must look beyond the existing majors to the new
wave of independence and remaining majors. This
situation parallels the experience in other oil and
gas basins worldwide, several of which have been
successful in this transition.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN opined that it was an important piece of
information for the committee to consider in light of
yesterday's testimony. He stated that the memo seems to indicate
that the testimony from yesterday was supported a decade ago by
the director of the Division of Oil and Gas.
3:38:06 PM
SENATOR WAGONER asked Mr. Brena what would happen to those
companies currently exploring on the North Slope if some of
their credits were taken away and allotted to new independent
explorers as incentives.
ROBIN BRENA, Attorney, Brena, Bell, and Clarkson, P.C., Alaska
Counsel for the Fairbanks North Star Borough and lead counsel
for the TAPS, inquired if Senator Wagoner was referring to
taking credits away from all current producers or just from the
independent companies.
SENATOR WAGONER clarified that he meant reallocating some
exploration credits that the independent companies currently
receive.
MR. BRENA explained that his testimony is directed at
establishing tax policy and the first step is to determine what
the free market can accomplish. He said until there is a free
market operating on the North Slope, it is unknown whether any
incentives need to be provided. He reported on active
development in the Gulf Coast, in North Dakota, and in the Cook
Inlet, without incentives, when free market conditions exist.
Another factor is that the price of oil has increased by a
factor of five in the last decade.
MR. BRENA stated that the first step is to establish a baseline
that does not substitute for a free market system from which to
form tax policy. He said he has not done an analysis of
incentives; however, he believed the key is to find the right
companies to incentivize and reward the behavior being sought.
Next, would be to target incentives that will optimize the
development of the North Slope.
3:41:43 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN thanked the presenters for their participation
and left it to them as to how to proceed with their testimony.
MR. BRENA related that he has a high opinion of the author of
the memo, Mark Myer, and said he agrees with the memo. He
commented on the barriers to new entrants, as referred to in the
memo, and concurred with the suggestions made. He noted that he
has worked for twenty years on achieving opportunities for
independent producers.
MR. BRENA summarized yesterday's presentation. The production
and transportation of Alaska's North Slope does not operate
under a free and open market system of economics. It is a market
place dominated by the "big three" oil companies. After 35 years
of operation, there is one independent shipper on TAPS and most
of the independent producers are selling their oil upstream so
they don't have to deal with the barriers associated with
transporting their own oil. He opined that the nature of those
barriers are due to permitting culture, access to field
facilities, and cost of transportation by pipeline and by
tanker. He suggested that the state should do everything
possible to reduce those three barriers.
3:46:04 PM
MR. BRENA said he also believes that, when establishing tax
policy, there is a natural evolution in an oil basin. In the
initial phase, the major producers build a major infrastructure
that opens up the region in order to develop the major fields.
After that, the independents come in and develop mid-sized and
smaller fields. He maintained that an efficient tax policy
should recognize the existing market structure and the state of
development in the North Slope. It should not attempt to
substitute tax incentives for objectives that a free market
system is capable of achieving. Open access lower transportation
rates will optimize development on the North Slope, especially
in light of current and projected oil prices.
MR. BRENA stated that tax policies should not attempt to provide
tax incentives to least willing and least efficient producers
for that stage of development of the basin. He pointed out that
of the big three, ConocoPhillips indicated some willingness to
do some exploration and development, particularly in the area of
heavy oil. He opined that it was important to develop heavy oil.
He reported that British Petroleum (BP) closed down their
exploration activity in the early 2000's and indicated it needed
a billion barrel field in order to justify its tax structure. BP
left exploration in Alaska for other parts of the world. He said
he shared a similar view of Exxon as a company that was not
willing to explore in Alaska.
3:48:13 PM
MR. BRENA referenced page 13 of a memo from BP.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN noted that all documents will be posted on
BASIS and are accessible at the meeting so that the public can
have access to them.
MR. BRENA related that he was lead counsel for the
municipalities on the ad valorem case with regard to the Gleason
Decision, as well as representing Anadarko and Tesoro in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) matter regarding the
inclusion or exclusion of funds spent for strategic
reconfiguration of whether they should be "float through" in
rates. The BP memo was a public document from the latter case.
MR. BRENA read from the BP memo:
As described in the Pump Station Electrification
Appraise FM of March 2003, Alaska's role in BP's
portfolio is to provide a stable production base and
cash flow to fuel growth elsewhere in the business
while improving margins and returns.
MR. BRENA termed BP's view of their Alaskan operations as a
"cash cow" to fund other exploration in other parts of the
world. He maintained that BP has been upfront with this
information. He reiterated his suggestions about how to deal
with tax incentives.
3:51:29 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN pointed out that the quote is found on page 13,
Section 2.1, of the document.
MR. BRENA added more information about litigating large cases in
Alaska. He said there are three ways to approach an issue,
litigation, negotiation, and legislation. Sometimes legislation
attempts to change the outcome of litigation. He referred to
comments on page 15 - RCA Issues. "We've considered the risks
that the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) will exert
approval authority over the proposed facility changes." He
stated that the RCA has specific statutory authority over the
abandonment of all facilities. The issue was decided and RCA
approved strategic reconfiguration based on certain
representations by the owner companies. He added that BP
prepared a legislative solution in case the RCA seeks to
intervene.
3:53:38 PM
SENATOR FRENCH commented on the aggressiveness of the strategy.
He summarized BP's document to say that if the RCA moves to
assert authority over facility changes, BP will try to change
the law to prevent that. He asked if Mr. Brena agreed.
MR. BRENA agreed and noted the strategy was consistent with when
he acted on Tesoro's behalf through the RCA to reduce the rates
from over $4 to $1.96, and changed their return from over 100
percent on unrecovered capital down to a 12 percent return,
which led to BP's involvement with HB 277 in 2005. HB 277
provided that the state would agree to a settlement that is
deemed a just and reasonable rate and interveners and
independents don't have the right to contest it. It took away an
independent shipper's right to even be heard by the regulator.
3:55:05 PM
MR. BRENA stressed that these were not theoretical issues, but
real issues. He referred to the non-development of Milne Point
by ConocoPhillips because of excessive transportation costs. He
quoted from page 29 of the Cicchetti Report. Commenting on
trading Milne Point to BP, Conoco President and Chief Executive
Archie Dunham said, "We traded in all our Milne Point properties
in Alaska to BP. It broke my heart to trade Milne Point, but we
had to do it. All the value of that property was taken away from
us in the pipeline tariffs."
MR. BRENA noted that the price of oil was less at that time and
the transportation rate was more, but emphasized that these are
real issues. He stated that this was Conoco acting before they
were integrated in Alaska; they had to leave a field behind.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN requested a discussion on the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS).
MR. BRENA related that he would discuss three areas in the life
of TAPS. The first area is the price of ANS crude oil. Every ten
dollar increase in the price of oil adds 5.5 more years to TAPS.
He maintained that "a rising tide raises all ships." The second
area is reserves and thru-put profiles, and the third area is
minimum throughput.
He noted that in the Judge Gleason Order, the municipalities'
estimates of reserves were adopted, as well as the ANS price
projections for crude oil, and the minimum throughput analysis
advanced by the municipalities.
He explained that the analysis worked by taking the reserves to
create a throughput profile and when that number hits 100,000
barrels per day, that is what is deemed to be the life of TAPS
in Judge Gleason's analysis.
3:58:39 PM
MR. BRENA turned to the first area in the life of TAPS, the
price of ANS oil. He noted that there has been a lot of focus on
throughput declines, rather than price increases. Currently,
there is greater value going through TAPS than ever before. He
figured 2.1 million barrels, times $10 a barrel, does not
compare to 600,000 barrels at $100 a barrel. The value of the
reserves today is greater than it ever has been: $700 billion
worth of proven reserves on the North Slope, a huge economic
driver. He emphasized that the oil would find its way to market,
despite what some would say.
4:00:04 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked for clarification of the term "proven
reserves." He wondered if it was North Slope conventional oil.
MR. BRENA replied that he is using the definition that Judge
Gleason used, which says that the reserves have to be based on
known technology, be economically feasible, and be legally
deliverable into TAPS. Judge Gleason did not include most of
Point Thomson in the definition. Mr. Brena concluded that it is
a very narrow definition of proven reserves, which is important
because it's conventional oil; there are no probable or
speculative reserves included, as well as nothing from the Outer
Continental Shelf. Also not included is 95 percent of heavy oil
or any shale oil.
CRAIG RICHARDS, Attorney, Walker and LeBreck, added that Judge
Gleason looked favorably on the categories that the Department
of Revenue uses in terms of oil that is under production, under
development, and under evaluation - oil from development
projects that might not be sanctioned or funded yet.
4:02:04 PM
MR. BRENA continued to discuss the topic of throughput decline.
He related that in the last five years, the value of throughput
has increased, has economic leverage and is growing. He said it
was important to keep that in mind. He stated that when he
questioned experts to see if any pipeline in the world had ever
"shut in" economic production, he found that the answer was
"no." He reminded the committee that Alaska has $700 billion in
proven reserves and there are engineering solutions for every
potential problem.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she understood Mr. Brena's argument that
the value of oil is higher because it is trading at a higher
price, but she maintained that the market can change. She asked
what would happen if ANS prices drop back to $30 or less. She
pointed out that the volatility goes both ways. She also asked
Mr. Brena for his theory was on why the "Big Three" oil
companies were coming to the state for a reduction in high taxes
which they maintain are detrimental to investment.
4:07:25 PM
MR. BRENA addressed volatility in price. Judge Gleason used the
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) prices. At some
point policy decisions have to be made based on the best
information at hand, which is that there is going to be real
growth in the price of oil over the next decade. He discussed
the disparity between ASN and WTI crude oil, which he said was
predominantly because WTI has stranded oil in Oklahoma that
can't make it to the refineries on the Gulf Coast. He called it
a temporary condition due to imbalance in the market and should
not drive a tax policy in Alaska.
4:09:03 PM
MR. BRENA emphasized that whatever tax policy Alaska adopts
should not be based on the prediction that the pipeline will
shut down tomorrow. He said he does not believe that any
discussion of a tax policy should be made under an artificially
created concept of crisis, such as TAPS shutting in $700 billion
worth of oil.
MR. BRENA discounted the idea that the oil companies were
playing games. Instead, he suggested they were attempting to
gain profits and expand their margins in Alaska. He suggested
that before the state takes any action, it should find out what
the oil companies' current development plans are, what their
projections are, in the form of specific documents. He cautioned
not to give $2 billion to the oil companies to go "do what they
were going to do, anyway."
4:11:59 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE addressed the challenge of obtaining those
documents from the oil companies. She stressed that there was no
"meeting behind closed doors." She pointed out that she
referenced the price discrepancy between WTI and ASN because it
demonstrates precisely what can happen in a political decision.
MR. RICHARDS opined that the focus should be getting the oil
companies to invest in existing fields. A lot of the discussion
is based around progressivity, which misses the mark regarding
the concerns the oil companies have raised. He said oil
companies are concerned about capital investment decisions
meeting positive net present value requirements. He suggested
the focus should be on ACES, not driving investment dollars away
by making otherwise positive projects negative cash flow at
different oil prices based on the tax structure. He encouraged a
tax structure that would give the oil companies positive project
investment incentives across the whole range of oil prices.
4:15:49 PM
MR. BRENA said that he did not mean to imply that oil company
positions were not public. He noted he would address the
proprietary nature of oil company information in tomorrow's
hearing. He recommended seeing oil company information in order
to make policies, and if it was not forthcoming, it would be
"very persuasive."
MR. BRENA turned to the EIA price forecast charts.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN clarified that EIA is the U.S. Energy
Information Administration.
MR. BRENA addressed price forecasting as the best indicator in
"The Life of TAPS". He referred to a chart by Dr. Cicchetti
which shows the price impact of three political events for the
past three decades. He showed a graph of the average annual
world oil prices in three cases from 1980 to 2035. Based on the
best information of today, the price of oil in 2035 would be
$130 to $140 per barrel.
4:19:36 PM
He discussed another graph based on EIA forecasts and noted that
the most likely forecast recently went up. He said that all oil
price projections have real growth.
MR. BRENA reiterated a previous statement that an increase of
$10 per barrel equals 5.5 years for TAPS. He related that when
Judge Gleason decided that the life of TAPS would end between
2065 and 2068, the decision was based on a very restrictive view
of what proven reserves would be produced and did not include
Point Thomson. When any price of oil projected today is factored
in, it is not possible to find an economic limit with regard to
production. Judge Gleason "cut it off at 100,000 barrels, even
though 100,000 barrels continue to be economic to produce." The
life of TAPS was not cut off because the economics changed, but
because the minimum mechanical capacity of TAPS was deemed by
Judge Gleason to be 100,000 barrels.
4:21:54 PM
MR. BRENA turned to the topic of unproven reserves, which were
not included in Judge Gleason's decision. He listed ANWR, the
Chukchi Sea, the Beaufort Sea, and NPRA as found in a chart
produced by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). He
stated that these reserves were economically recoverable and
were likely to be produced.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if those reserves were in addition to the
proven reserves.
MR. BRENA said yes. He referred to a chart that showed that the
value of remaining crude for the next 25 years will exceed the
current cumulative value of oil shipped in real and nominal
terms.
4:23:06 PM
MR. BRENA discussed the impact of oil production in the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). In the late 2020's and 2030's the
upward capacity of TAPS will be challenged again based on
Shell's projections.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that the chart was from Shell's
presentation.
MR. BRENA pointed out that Shell has $4 billion invested and the
resources consist of drilled holes and productive wells. He said
the longer production is delayed, the longer the life of TAPS
will be.
MR. BRENA turned to a chart that showed ANS historical and
forecast oil production from producing fields, known undeveloped
fields, and undiscovered fields. He commented that the
discussion about tax policy focuses on what happens right after
a rapid decline and when throughput is expected to stabilize. He
pointed out that at that point of slope development, there is
less investment associated with production and more associated
with maintenance, as seen in recent years.
He noted that some of the decline is as a result of breakdowns
of field facilities, such as in Prudhoe Bay due to corrosion. He
concluded that the more the decline, as a result of delays in
projects or field facility problems, the longer the life of TAPS
will be. He encouraged the committee to believe that TAPS will
be around for a long time and there is plenty of time to
evaluate it. He said that this is a perfect time to make tax
policy decisions because oil production is stabilizing and then
will increase.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if that table included any potential
shale.
MR. BRENA said that it does not include any shale; it is
conventional oil only. Nor does it include 95 percent of heavy
oil, of which there are 20 billion barrels. He recalled that
there were 9.6 billion barrels of proven reserves when TAPS
began; today there are between 7 and 8 billion barrels. He
emphasized that fields grow and technology changes, which will
also be true in the future.
4:28:26 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired who developed the forecast.
MR. RICHARDS replied that it was Dr. Hite.
MR. BRENA added that Dr. Hite developed the forecast for the
Department of Energy, not for litigation purposes.
MR. BRENA related that the reserve estimate and production
forecast that Judge Gleason adopted was developed by Dudley
Platt. Judge Gleason was taxed with the job of trying to
determine which of the experts was correct, so she looked at
proprietary internal documents of the major oil producers. She
maintained that Mr. Platt's predictions were consistent with
those internal documents. He called that a "reality check."
4:31:28 PM
MR. BRENA explained the second criterion used by Judge Gleason
was financial reporting to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). He explained BP's Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust
and auditing procedure by Miller and Lents, Ltd.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN referenced slide 51 as the source of that
information.
4:32:48 PM
MR. BRENA referred to BP Royalty Trust documents and gave an
example of a report to SEC, which used only proven reserves and
the price of oil on December 31 of the prior year. Today, the
average of 12 months is used instead. The document stated that
based on $96 oil, BP expected continued economic production at a
declining rate through 2075.
MR. BRENA concluded that Judge Gleason had access to inside
information that was shared with the investment community and
shown to potential buyers. Those sources of information were
consistent with Dudley Platt's forecasts.
4:36:01 PM
MR. RICHARDS added that Judge Gleason also found that DOR's
current forecasting methodology did not reflect internal oil
company numbers. He noted that slide 46 lists her concerns with
DOR's new forecast approach, which changed from a pool analysis
to a well-by-well forecast methodology. Judge Gleason was
concerned that DOR did not have enough information on individual
wells and their interaction with other wells.
He turned to slide 47, an example of a well profile DOR used to
project production which was complex and difficult to use. Judge
Gleason found that DOR had to make projections on new wells
without having adequate data. Those are a couple of examples of
why Judge Gleason found that DOR was underestimating the amount
of total production that would probably occur on the North
Slope.
SENATOR STEDMAN stated that he had just received the current SEC
10K filings, or annual report, from December 31, 2010. He said
he did not see any reference to Miller and Lentz or regarding
TAPS lasting until 2075.
4:39:40 PM
MR. BRENA said that Senator Stedman was correct that in 2010 and
2011 the data was withheld as a result of the data appearing in
litigation. Contained in the 10K report is data from years 2006
- 2009 and a chart that shows the correlation of each of those
data points - slide 56. He pointed out that there is tremendous
consistency between the data points. He said, "As the price of
oil goes up, the life of Prudhoe goes out." He noted that
further sources of information would be forthcoming that would
contrast public information on the life of TAPS.
4:42:59 PM
MR. BRENA addressed minimal mechanical throughput as shown on
slide 59. He stated that there is no hydraulic limit on TAPS;
however, there is a mechanical limit, which is less than 50,000
barrels per day (BPD). He said this information comes from the
"the owner's expert witness." He related that there are
operational constraints on the continuing operation of TAPS;
however, the problems have been solvable when there is economic
oil to produce.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI requested clarification of the decision
Judge Gleason made and the people and information she relied on
to make her decision.
MR. BRENA explained that there was a nine week trial and
involved a most thorough discussion of TAPS. He said Judge
Gleason had been involved in previous trials similar in nature.
He spoke highly of Judge Gleason's credentials.
4:46:53 PM
MR. BRENA returned to operational concerns and reported that
former Alyeska Chief Operating Officer, Dan Hisey, concurred
that there is no hydraulic or mechanical minimum throughput
limit on TAPS. Alyeska will continue to find ways to move the
oil. He stressed the importance of keeping in mind the
tremendous value of the oil, which is a huge economic incentive
to keeping the line going.
MR. BRENA related that one of the solutions to keeping the oil
moving is to add heat. He referred to slide 79, prepared by Mr.
Hisey, which shows mitigation measures available to keep the oil
moving. He said that assuming continued decline, which he said
he does not believe will happen, the state is at a stabilized
level of throughput that will begin to increase. When Shell
comes online, it will go up substantially. He predicted that
production may reach the point where it will push the limits of
TAPS again.
He referred to a flow study done by BP that showed that TAPS
could operate down to 135,000 barrels a day. Once a certain low
point is reached it is possible to add heat and recirculate the
oil.
4:51:03 PM
MR. BRENA pointed out that adding heat would cost approximately
$1 billion to $2 billion over the period of decline. There is
heat currently being added to heavy California oil.
MR. RICHARDS pointed out key studies included in members'
packets. In the JTG study, on page 11, there are five scenarios
regarding operating TAPS at ultra-low flows. The Carpenter
study, on page 8, shows a determination made that TAPS can be
operated with heat down to very low flow. Below 50,000 to 70,000
barrels a day would require solutions other than heating.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked why BP would spend the effort or money on
developing the analysis to run the pipeline at 100,000 barrels a
day, if they never thought they'd be at that point.
MR. RICHARDS explained that the purpose of the study was simply
to book their proven reserves. The SEC requires certain
assumptions to be made to book reserves, such as economic
testing.
4:54:27 PM
MR. BRENA added that Alyeska did a low flow study with a range
from 300,000 barrels per day to 1.14 million barrels per day. He
emphasized that it is not a question of whether or not they will
get the low flow, but when. The other two studies, JTD and
Carpenter, were for BP and assessed how low TAPS could go
because they wanted to book additional reserves and add to the
value of their company for financial reporting purposes. They
determined TAPS could go down to 135,000 barrels per day without
recirculation. Their experts testified TAPS could go down to
50,000 barrels per day with recirculation. That allowed BP to
book 63 million additional barrels and to increase the value of
their company by 63 million, times the price of crude oil.
4:56:35 PM
MR. RICHARDS brought the committee's attention to the Larkspur
Study where BP lays out where the heaters need to be located
along TAPS in order to get down to 100,000 barrels per day and
the cost of doing so.
MR. BRENA noted that Alyeska studies issues for years. One way
to know when "they are serious" about implementing a solution is
when they spend money. They have yet to study the issue of low
flow pigging or to buy heaters. He mentioned the Flint Hills
heat recovery system. He concluded that knowing a company's
process provides information as to how impending an issue is.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN said he looked forward to the conclusion of the
presentation at tomorrow's meeting.
5:00:59 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| BRENA_2012-02-06 FINAL.pdf |
SRES 2/7/2012 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Mark Myers_Oil and Gas Briefing Paper.pdf |
SRES 2/7/2012 3:30:00 PM |
|
| BP_Doc_SOA-0588 (20110916 revised redactions FINAL).pdf |
SRES 2/7/2012 3:30:00 PM |