1 U.S. State That Big Oil Is Scared Of

Despite calling a proposed tax overhaul in the state a "game changer," the oil industry's top players in Alaska remain nervous. Call it once burned and twice shy, but the industry is holding back on committing more capital to the state's declining oil fields. The concern here is twofold: First is nervousness that this overhaul will fail, and even more concerning is that federal regulations are too unclear at the moment.

This overall regulatory and tax uncertainty has caused ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP  ) to put its 2014 Chukchi Sea project plans on hold. The project was just one of its many worldwide exploration and appraisal projects that the company expects to drive future production growth. However, the timing of the decision is odd, considering the company has said that it would commit more capital to the state if the tax overhaul goes through. 

Conoco's current plan is to invest $2.5 billion in Alaska as part of its five-year development plan. That spending, however, isn't enough to offset its production declines in the state, though it would hold those declines to just 3% per year through 2017. It has said that it could spend additional development capital under improved fiscal terms. However, until the tax overhaul is passed, the company won't pursue additional development. 

The overhaul has the potential to cut $1 billion in taxes for the oil companies. That would provide a nice savings, as these companies provided the state with $8.9 billion in tax revenue last year. Representatives from ConocoPhillips, BP (NYSE: BP  ) and ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM  ) all spoke before the Alaskan House Finance Committee earlier this week to make sure their voices were heard. 

All three view the proposed structure as being much more conducive to increasing production, because the current structure is progressive, which limits the incentive for increasing production when prices are high. The structure starts out at as a base tax of 25% on profits when oil prices are $30 a barrel, and then it increases 0.4% for every $1 per barrel that prices rise over $30. That has yielded tax rates between 40% and 80% of profits for some companies. The new structure would be a simple flax tax rate, with a reduced rate for areas of new production. 

While there's a general nervousness that the overhaul won't pass, the real issue for Conoco's putting Chukchi on hold lies with the federal government. According to Conoco, a recent Department of the Interior report calling for the industry to work with it to develop an Arctic-specific model for offshore oil and gas drilling in Alaska adds too much uncertainty. Because of this unknown, it's simply not worth the risk of committing capital at this point.

Overall, drilling in the Arctic is a risky venture. Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS-A  ) has already pulled its 2013 program after the company experienced a number of problems. The company also was never able to finish its work on a spill barge as part of its spill response plan, while a containment dome was damaged in testing. Shell has spent about $5 billion here from 2006 to 2012, with very little to show for it. 

Conoco doesn't want to find itself in that position, so it's going to take a more cautious route. It plans to work with the government and other leaseholders to clearly define the requirements, and then it will re-evaluate its capital plans. The company has a number of other major exploration projects already, so it can afford to be cautious.

ConocoPhillips is one of the many companies benefiting from high oil prices. If you're on the lookout for some currently intriguing energy plays, check out The Motley Fool's "3 Stocks for $100 Oil." For free access to this special report, simply click here now.


Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (4)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 15, 2013, at 3:32 AM, jmpollo wrote:

    I would say Alaska needs big oil more than big oil needs Alaska. Big oil has options world wide. Its a business. They will go where they can make money. If the tax structure isn't conducive to that, they will move on. What will Alaska do to replace that revenue? Commercial fishing?? Last year was a disaster for the salmon industry on cook inlet. Tourism? Tied to to sport fishing and after last years collapse of the king run on the Kenai and other cook inlet rivers, that is a dying business.

    Based on oil revenue, Alaskan's pay no state income tax, no sales tax, and receive a dividend check of between $800 and $1200 per annum for every resident man, woman and child. If big oil goes away, the entire tax structure in Alaska collapses, As much as they hate to admit it and the debate currently rages in the Great Land, big oil is negotiating from a position of advantage. Yes, big oil just got a huge tax break with no guarantees of increased production, but the state really had no alternative at this point,

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2362430, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/21/2014 2:43:29 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement