DOCSLIB.ORG

Respondents' Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Respondents' Brief !FILECOPV] r:"iLED In the Supreme Court of the State of Alask~F?i='u,\r[ ;~:JUr:T:'; 20 II SEP I 4 AM /0: 4 I STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF ) NATURAL RESOURCES, ) ) 8'(: Petitioner, ) OEPU1'Y Cl.i~F" ) Supreme Court Case No. S-13730 vs. ) Trial Court Case No. 3AN-06-13751 ) (Consolidated Appeals) EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, ) Case No. 3AN-06-13760 CI OPERATOR OF THE POINT THOMSON ) Case No. 3AN-06-13773 CI UNIT; BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) ) Case No. 3AN-06-13799 CI INC.; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; ) Case No. 3AN-07-04634 CI CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, INC., ) Case No. 3AN-07-04620 CI ) Case No. 3AN-07-04621 CI Respondents. ) ----------------------------) BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC., CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., AND CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, INC. PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT r THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT - HONORABLE SHARON GLEASON, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE Of Counsel: Douglas J. Serdahely ] M. Randall Oppenheimer Alaska Bar No. 7210072 Charles C. Lifland Barat M. LaPorte O'MEL VENY & MYERS LLP Alaska Bar No. 9511064 ] 400 South Hope Street PATTON BOGGS LLP Los Angeles, California 90071 601 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700 ] Phone: (213)430-6000 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: (907) 263-6310 William B. Rozell 1 Alaska Bar No. 7210067 Attorneys for Respondent Exxon Mobil P.O. Box 20730 Corporation Juneau, Alaska 99802 J Phone: (907) 463-5647 Marilyn May, Clerk George R. Lyle Susan Orlansky Alaska Bar No. 8411126 Alaska Bar No. 8106042 GUESS & RUDD PC FELDMAN ORLANSKY & SANDERS 510 L Street, Suite 700 500 L Street, Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Bradford G. Keithley Alaska Bar No. 1010054 I PERKINS COlE LLP 1029 West 3rd Avenue, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 I Attorneys for Respondent BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. ~ Of Counsel: Stephen M. Ellis ~ Alaska Bar No. 7510065 P. Jefferson Ballew DELANEY WILES, INC. U G. Luke Ashley 1007 West 3rd A venue, Suite 400 THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP Anchorage, Alaska 99501 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 U Dallas, Texas 75201-2533 Attorneys for Respondent Chevron U.S.A. Inc. I Spencer C. Sneed Alaska Bar No. 7811140 D DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 600 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 a Attorneys for Respondent ConocoPhillips !J Alaska, Inc. IJ IJ ! ] IJ iJ [1 ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Issues Presented ................................................................................................................... 1 II. Introduction and Summary of Argument ............................................................................ 1 III. Statement of the Case .......................................................................................................... 4 IV. Standard of Review ........................................................................................................... 31 V. Argument. .......................................................................................................................... 33 A. DNR Was Required To Invoke Section 21 To Unilaterally Increase The Rate Of Prospecting, Development, Or Production.............................................. 33 1. Section 21 Applies Whenever DNR Seeks Unilaterally To Alter The Rate Of Prospecting, Development, Or Production ........................... 35 2. Section 21 Is Consistent With Section 10, Which Under DNR's Contrary Reading Would Nullify Section 21. ........................................... 38 3. DNR's Various Arguments That Section 21 Does Not Apply In . The Present Circumstances Are Without Merit. ....................................... 42 4. The Parties' Past Conduct Does Not Undermine The WIOs' Interpretation Of Section 21. ..................................................................... 47 5. Section 21 Is Consistent With The Statutes And Regulations In Effect In 1977 And Does Not Undermine DNR's Authority To Manage The State' s Natural Resources In The Public Interest. ................ 51 B. DNR Again Violated The WIOs' State and Federal Due Process Rights ............. 58 ] 1. The Superior Court Correctly Applied In re Robson In Analyzing Whether The Attorneys And Staff Who Represented DNR In The First Appeal Could Advise The Commissioner In The Remand 1 Proceeding ................................................................................................. 59 2. The Appointment Of Ms. Thompson As Hearing Officer Also Violated The WIOs' Due Process Rights .................................................. 63 ] 3. DNR's Call For A Balancing Test Is Not Appropriate In Light Of Robson's Determination That Improper Mixing Of An Agency's Advocatory And Adjudicatory Functions Is A Per Se Due Process J Violation .................................................................................................... 68 4. The Superior Court's Decision Was Necessary Under Robson And Is Neither Impractical Nor Unduly Burdensome to DNR ......................... 69 VI. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 71 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES tlfl.:. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.2d 1116 (Alaska 1997) .................................................................................................. 32 Amara v. Cigna Corp., 534 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D. Conn. 2008), vacated ....................................................................... 45 Amerada Hess Pipeline Corp. v. Regulatory, Comm 'n of Alaska, 176 P.3d 667 (Alaska 2008) (per curiam) ......................................................................... 60,61 Ardestani v. INS, 502 U.S. 129 (1991) ................................................................................................................ 69 Atlantic Richfield Co. v. State, 705 P.2d 418 (Alaska 1985) .................................................................................................... 33 Bd. of Trade, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor, Wage & Hour Admin., 968 P.2d 86 (Alaska 1998) ...................................................................................................... 33 Betz v. Chena Hot Springs Group, 657 P.2d 831 (Alaska 1982) .................................................................................................... 40 i Botsko v. Davenport Civil Rights Comm 'n, ] 774 N.W.2d 841 (Iowa 2009) .................................................................................................. 69 Brewster v. Lanyon Zinc Co., 140 F. 801 (8th Cir. 1905) ....................................................................................................... 11 ] Calvert v. Dep't of Labor & Worliforce Dev., 251 P.3d 990 (Alaska 2011) .................................................................................................... 33 1 Cigna Corp. v. Amara, 131 S.Ct. 1866 (2011) ............................................................................................................. 45 ConocaPhillips Alaska, Inc. v. State, 109 P.3d 914 (Alaska 2005) ................................................................................................ 5,32 J Danca Exploration, Inc. v. State, Dep't af Natural Res., 924 P.2d 432 (Alaska 1996) .................................................................................................... 70 J Davenport Pastures, LP v. Morris Cry. Bd. afCty. Comm'rs, 238 P. 3d 731 (Kan. 2010) ...................................................................................................... 69 ] II Dep't of Revenue v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 858 P.2d 307 (Alaska 1993) .................................................................................................... 33 Exxon Corp. v. State, 40 P.3d 786 (Alaska 2001) .......................................................................................... 32,40,53 Frost v. Spencer, 218 P.3d 678 (Alaska 2009) .................................................................................................... 59 Grant v. Anchorage Police Dept., 20 P.3d.553 (Alaska 2001) ...................................................................................................... 36 GroZier, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 615 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1980) ................................................................................................. 69 In re ANS Royalty Litigation, No. lJU-77-847, at 41-42 (Alaska Super. Mar. 13, 1991) (Carpeneti, J.) ........................ 11,41 In re Nash, No. 6585, slip op. (Alaska, July 29,2011) .............................................................................. 60 In re Robson, 575 P.2d 771 (Alaska 1978) ............................................................................................. passim Kay v. Danbar Inc., 132 P.3d 262 (Alaska 2006) .................................................................................................... 45 Norville v. Carr-Gottstein Foods Co., 84 P.3d 996 (Alaska 2004) ...................................................................................................... 36 Nw. Pipeline Corp. v; Adams County, 131 P.3d 958 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) ...................................................................................... 45 P.M. v. State, Dept. of Health and Soc. Servs., Div. of Family and Youth Servs., 42 P.3d 1127 (Alaska 2002) .................................................................................................... 68 Quality Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 71 P.3d 865 (Alaska 2003) .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conocophillips Alaska: Investing in Alaska in Changing Times
    ConocoPhillips Alaska: Investing in Alaska in Changing Times Jan. 13, 2017 Joe Marushack, President January 12, 2017 Cautionary Statement & Safe Harbor The following presentation includes forward‐looking statements. These statements relate to future events, such as anticipated revenues, earnings, business strategies, competitive position or other aspects of our operations, operating results or the industries or markets in which we operate or participate in general. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecast in such forward‐ looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that may prove to be incorrect and are difficult to predict such as oil and gas prices; operational hazards and drilling risks; potential failure to achieve, and potential delays in achieving expected reserves or production levels from existing and future oil and gas development projects; unsuccessful exploratory activities; unexpected cost increases or technical difficulties in constructing, maintaining or modifying company facilities; international monetary conditions and exchange controls; potential liability for remedial actions under existing or future environmental regulations or from pending or future litigation; limited access to capital or significantly higher cost of capital related to illiquidity or uncertainty in the domestic or international financial markets; general domestic and international economic and political conditions, as well as changes in tax, environmental and other laws applicable to ConocoPhillips’ business and other economic, business, competitive and/or regulatory factors affecting ConocoPhillips’ business generally as set forth in ConocoPhillips’ filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). We caution you not to place undue reliance on our forward‐looking statements, which are only as of the date of this presentation or as otherwise indicated, and we expressly disclaim any responsibility for updating such information.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Tax Rates for Oil and Gas Companies Cashing in on Special Treatment
    Effective Tax Rates for Oil and Gas Companies Cashing in on Special Treatment July 2014 Table of Contents Page Results in Brief …………………………………………………………………….. 3 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………. 4 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 6 Notes …………………………………………………………………………………… 6 U.S. Federal Effective Tax Rates, 2009-2013 …………………………… 7 Foreign Effective Tax Rates, 2009-2013 ………………………………..... 8 Deferred Tax Liabilities from Property, Plant, and Equipment in 2012 and 2013……………………………………………………………………….. 9 Appendix: Company Profiles ExxonMobil Corporation ……………………………………………......... 10 ConocoPhillips …………………………………………………………………. 12 Occidental Petroleum Corporation …………………………………….. 14 Chevron Corporation ………………………………………………………… 15 Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ………………………………………. 17 Chesapeake Energy Corporation …………………………………......... 19 EOG Resources, Inc. …………………………………………………........ 20 Devon Energy Corporation …………………………………………......... 22 Apache Corporation ………………………………………………………….. 23 Pioneer Natural Resources Company ………………………………….. 25 Continental Resources, Inc. ……………………………………………… 27 Marathon Oil Corporation …………………………………………………. 28 Hess Corporation ……………………………………………………………… 29 Range Resources Corporation ……………………………………………. 30 Plains Exploration & Production Company …………………………. 31 SandRidge Energy, Inc. ……………………………………………………. 33 Whiting Petroleum Corporation …………………………………………. 34 Denbury Resources, Inc. ………………………………………………….. 35 Noble Energy, Inc. …………………………………………………………… 36 Concho Resources Inc. …………………………………………………….. 37 Company Notes …………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • HOUSE RES COMMITTEE -1- April 24, 2012 - HEARD & HELD
    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE April 24, 2012 1:27 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair Representative Alan Dick Representative Neal Foster Representative Bob Herron Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz Representative Berta Gardner Representative Scott Kawasaki MEMBERS ABSENT All members present OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Representative Lance Pruitt Representative Kurt Olson Representative Dan Saddler Representative Pete Petersen Representative Chris Tuck Representative Anna Fairclough Representative Craig Johnson Representative Mike Doogan Senator Cathy Giessel COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 3001 "An Act relating to adjustments to oil and gas production tax values based on a percentage of gross value at the point of production for oil and gas produced from leases or properties north of 68 degrees North latitude; relating to monthly installment payments of the oil and gas production tax; relating to the determinations of oil and gas production tax values; relating to oil and gas production tax credits including qualified capital credits for exploration, development, or production; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." HOUSE RES COMMITTEE -1- April 24, 2012 - HEARD & HELD PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION BILL: HB3001 SHORT TITLE: OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION TAX SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR 04/18/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 04/18/12 (H) RES, FIN 04/20/12 (H) RES AT 1:00
    [Show full text]
  • 801—Arctic Energy
    North Slope oil and gas - a short history Contents Oil and gas development brought statehood for Alaska, a large and consistent revenue stream for state and local gov- 3 North Slope oil and gas ernments, a $33 billion savings account for Alaskans to enjoy and indoor plumbing and schools for many rural resi- 4 Viscous oil dents, including those who live on the North Slope. 4 Most frequently asked questions Most of Alaska’s oil comes from the 24 producing fields on the North Slope, including Prudhoe Bay, one of the 5 Facts about Alaska largest oil fields in the world. North Slope production totals about 900,000 barrels of oil per day. While the huge Prudhoe Bay field is in gradual decline, North Slope oil fields 5 Economic impact still provide a significant amount of U.S. domestic produc- tion. 6 Who we are An 800-mile-long pipeline carries North Slope oil to tide- 7 Natural gas water where it is transferred to tankers for transport to downstream markets. 8-13 North Slope oil fields Oil was first discovered on the North Slope thousands of 14-17 Drilling technology years ago. Native Eskimos cut blocks of oil-soaked tundra from natural seeps to use as fuel. But the first real search 18-19 Oil production for oil didn’t begin until the late 1920s when hearty explor- ers traveled by dog team, foot and boat. 20-21 Getting oil to market, TAPS The first geologic surveys took place on Alaska’s North Slope in the late 1950s and early 1960s and in 1968, after 22-23 Double hull tankers nearly a dozen unsuccessful wells, or “dry holes,” a major discovery was made.
    [Show full text]
  • Conocophillips Alpine CD-5 2011
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office 101 12th Avenue, Room 110 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 December 2, 2011 Kevin Morgan, Chief, Regulatory Division USACE Alaska District P.O. BOX 6898, CEPOA-RD JBER, AK 99506-0898 Re: Biological Opinion for the ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.’s proposed CD-5 project (POA-2005-1576) Dear Mr. Morgan: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service’s) Biological Opinion (BO) on a revised proposal by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. to construct and operate Alpine Satellite Development CD-5 and concludes section 7 consultation on the proposed action. After reviewing the information provided, the status of the species, the environmental baseline, and cumulative effects, the Service has concluded that the proposed activities may adversely affect spectacled eiders (Somateria fischeri), polar bears (Ursus maritimus), and polar bear critical habitat but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of either species and are not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for polar bears. We also concluded that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect Steller’s eiders (Polysticta stelleri). The Service previously issued a BO for CPAI’s proposed Alpine Satellite Development Project located within the Colville River Delta and the eastern planning area of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska on September 28, 2004 (2004 BO). In the 2004 BO, the Service concluded that the proposed project, including plans for future development of CD-5, would not jeopardize the continued existence of spectacled eiders and the proposed action was not likely to adversely affect Steller’s eiders.
    [Show full text]
  • Stranded Gas Hearings (0410140930 Minutes)
    Stranded Gas Hearings (0410140930 Minutes) The Process of and Criteria Used in Making a Decision on Whether to Invest in an Upstream or Midstream Project – October 14, 2004. Ken Thompson, Past Executive Vice President, ARCO, and Past President ARCO Alaska; Joe Marushack, Vice President of Alaska Gas Development, ConocoPhillips Alaska, on behalf of producers BP, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil CO-CHAIR SAMUELS thanked Mr. Brintnell for his presentation and introduced Mr. Ken Thompson, past Executive Vice President of ARCO and the past President of Arco Alaska, and Mr. Joe Marushack, Vice President of Alaska Gas Development, ConocoPhillips Alaska. He noted that Mr. Marushack would be presenting on behalf of ConocoPhillips, BP and Exxon Mobil. He informed members that Mr. Thompson would be giving two different presentations and wearing two "hats" so he asked members to limit questions to the specific presentation entitled, The Process of and Criteria Used in Making a Decision on Whether to Invest in an Upstream or Midstream Project. MR. KEN THOMPSON explained to members that he would be wearing the hat of an ex-ARCO Executive Vice President, having sat and participated in meetings of that corporation for his last two years at ARCO, and that he would also be arguing for capital for Alaska as President of Arco Alaska from 1994 to 1998 and explain how projects got prioritized on the capital allocation list of that corporation. He said he is currently serving on the audit committees of the boards of directors of Alaska Air Group and the Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation, where he oversees capital allocations.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyses of Key Companies Having Business Operations in the Arctic
    Analyses of Key Companies having Business Operations in the Arctic Extract of the report Climate Change in the Arctic April 2017 1 Main companies from key sectors in the Arctic Table 4 List of main companies from key sectors in the Arctic Shell, conoco, bp, noble energy, transocean Sector Company Logo Oil & Gas (19) Mining (10) Fishery (7) Others (3) 2 Analyses of Key Companies having Business Operations in the Arctic A. Oil and Gas Sector Royal Dutch Shell Climate change or carbon emission Main business activities reduction related initiatives within in the Arctic and beyond the Arctic • Shell owns 27.5% interest in Sakha- • Shell ended the offshore exploration lin-2 on the Sakhalin Island (Russia), drilling operations in Alaska in an integrated oil and gas project locat- September 2015. ed in a subarctic environment. • Shell works with Wetlands Interna- • In 2015, Shell has made drillings for tional to identify and assess critical oil and gas at the Burger J well habitats in the Arctic regions, develop- in the Chukchi Sea (offshore Alaska, ing a tool that predicts the distribution US ), but the discoveries were of Arctic species; and ever since 2006, insufficient to warrant further explora- it has funded a science programme tion in the area and the well was with the local governments of the Royal Dutch Shell deemed a dry hole. The well was North Slope in Alaska. sealed and abandoned in accordance HQ: The Hague, Netherlands with US regulations. • Shell and IUCN have been work- ing together since 2004 to minimise Ticker: • Shell has 18 state leases in the Beau- the impact on Western gray whales RDS/A fort Harrison Bay area in Alaska at Shell’s jointventure operations in Market Cap (USD mil.): (US ).
    [Show full text]
  • Ranking Oil, Gas and Mining Companies on Indigenous Rights in the Arctic
    INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND RESOURCE EXTRACTION IN THE ARCTIC: EVALUATING ETHICAL GUIDELINES December 2016 Ranking Oil, Gas and Mining Companies on Indigenous Rights in the Arctic HIGHLIGHTS This ranking evaluates the public commitments, formalised • The top-ranking Arctic procedures and institutional arrangements of oil, gas and company on indigenous mining companies for handling indigenous rights in the Arctic. rights is Teck Alaska The purpose of the ranking is to support norm formation and Incorporated. to contribute to improving the performance of companies on • Over 60% per cent of indigenous rights by highlighting which companies have made companies operating a public commitment to indigenous rights, and to what extent. in the Arctic are poorly prepared to respect The ranking covers 92 oil, gas and mining companies indigenous rights. involved in onshore resource extraction above the Arctic • Petroleum companies Circle. Each company is assessed according to 20 criteria have significantly better related to indigenous rights. The criteria were selected scores than mining by evaluating the main guidelines and legal instruments companies, although related to resource extraction and indigenous rights in the the best performer is a mining company. Arctic. These criteria include commitments to international standards, the presence of organisational units dedicated to • The ranking indicates handling indigenous rights, competent staffing, track records that ratification of on indigenous issues, transparency, and procedures for ILO Convention 169 consulting with indigenous peoples. on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples does not guarantee that a The actual performance of companies on indigenous rights country provides an is not assessed – only their public commitments, formalised adequate enabling procedures and organisational setup.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Lng Project Llc ) Fe Docket No
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY ____________________________________________ ) ALASKA LNG PROJECT LLC ) FE DOCKET NO. 14-96-LNG ____________________________________________ ) FINAL OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING LONG-TERM AUTHORIZATION TO EXPORT LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TO NON-FREE TRADE AGREEMENT NATIONS DOE/FE ORDER NO. 3643-A AUGUST 20, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 6 A. DOE/FE’s Issuance of Alaska LNG’s Conditional Order .............................................. 6 B. Judicial Decisions Upholding DOE’s Non-FTA Authorizations .................................... 7 III. PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARD ...................................................................................... 9 A. Natural Gas Act Section 3(a) .......................................................................................... 9 B. Application of Standard to Proposed Exports from Alaska .......................................... 12 IV. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST .......................................................................................... 13 A. Description of Applicant ............................................................................................... 13 B. The Alaska LNG Project ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Assessment • Arctic Potential Assessment Supplemental
    SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT • to the 2015 Report ARCTIC POTENTIALARCTIC ARCTIC POTENTIAL Realizing the Promise of U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas Resources NPC National • Petroleum 2019 Council 2019 April 26, 2019 The Honorable Rick Perry Secretary of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 Dear Mr. Secretary: In response to your August 29, 2018 request made in coordination with the Department of the Interior, the National Petroleum Council conducted a Supplemental Assessment to its 2015 report, Arctic Potential: Realizing the Promise of U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas Resources. To build upon the deep foundation, broad participation, and consensus view of the 2015 report, the Council conducted a technical workshop to gather new information, at the Baker Institute at Rice University, attended by industry, government, and other stakeholders. The 2015 study concluded that the technology was available to prudently explore for and develop oil and gas in the U.S. Arctic while protecting people and the environment. The 2015 study also found that the physical, ecological, and human environment was well understood after decades of research, and that suf- ficient information was available to pursue exploration. Despite proven technical and operational capability, the 2015 study noted that pursuing oil and gas in the U.S. Arctic was hindered by challenging economics, a regulatory framework taken from southern regions where work could be conducted year-round, and a lack of public confidence that it could be conducted safely and responsibly. The 2015 report recommended tech- nology validation and demonstrations to promote improved understanding and public confidence, and that the results of these demonstrations be used to revise the regulatory framework to make it more consistent with other Arctic nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Petroleum News 102520.Qxp Petroleum News 082904
    page With 200 installed, rural Alaska 2 leads way for microgrid systems Vol. 25, No. 43 • www.PetroleumNews.com A weekly oil & gas newspaper based in Anchorage, Alaska Week of October 25, 2020 • $2.50 l FINANCE & ECONOMY More competition for O&G capital for Alaska from L 48 shale plays ALASKA’S LARGEST OIL PRODUCER ConocoPhillips’ planned acquisition of Oil price lift off Concho Resources in a $9.7 billion all-stock deal gives the big independent more invest- US air travel gains altitude; coming supply constraints hike price forecast ment opportunities in Lower 48 and Canada unconventional plays, a region that already By STEVE SUTHERLIN Daily screenings plunged below 100,000 pas- competes with the North Slope for capital. Petroleum News sengers on April 14, a 96% reduction from 2019. Not to suggest ConocoPhillips is going While Oct. 18 numbers — the highest since March anywhere, but in October 2014 Alaska lost et fuel demand may climb higher as U.S. pas- 16 — are a ten-fold improvement from the low for Pioneer Natural Resources to the lure of the Lower 48 shale 2020, that passenger count is less than half of the fields. For that matter, as BP Exploration was preparing to Jsenger numbers lifted above the 1 million mark for a single day, according to Transportation 2.6 million that passed TSA checkpoints Oct. 18, leave Alaska it expanded its Lower 48 unconventional hold- 2019. ings with a $10.5 billion acquisition of BHP’s American Security Administration passenger screening num- bers. The agency cleared 1,031,505 passengers for The TSA numbers nonetheless offer a bit of see INSIDER page 8 takeoff Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Petroleum News Ebook
    page Shell responds to stakeholders’ 13 concerns, postpones critical drilling Vol. 13, No. 7 • www.PetroleumNews.com A weekly oil & gas newspaper based in Anchorage, Alaska Week of February 17, 2008 • $1.50 ● NATURAL GAS Chevron to explore from Anna TransCanada responds Palmer tells legislators ANNGTC only Alaska, and not using any old permits COURTESY CHEVRON COURTESY By KRISTEN NELSON Palmer said he realizes there is a concern Petroleum News about how motivated TransCanada would laska legislators have be to manage pipeline construction costs, FORREST CRANE had a lot of questions and said the company’s AGIA proposal A about the TransCanada includes a penalty on its rate of return if application under the Alaska Gasline Inducement there are cost overruns. Act or AGIA; Feb. 6-7 they got a chance to ask those some $9 billion, mainly interest — if that project Tony Palmer, were ever built. The amount is shown in Federal questions of Tony Palmer, TransCanada TransCanada’s vice president Energy Regulatory Commission filings for for Alaska business development, who talked to ANNGTC (see “TransCanada: no liability” in Feb. Senate Resources and the House majority caucus. 3 issue of Petroleum News at www.petroleum- A big ticket item was the money that could be news.com/pnads/374395925.shtml). Following development oil drilling at Granite Point, Chevron is look- TransCanada has said that even if any of this ing at drilling untapped shallow gas horizons in aging Cook Inlet owed to withdrawn partners in the Alaska field. See story on page 9. Northwest Natural Gas Transportation Co. — see TRANSCANADA page 17 ● ISER: New Alaska oil tax slams NATURAL GAS construction spending growth The oil industry will spend nearly $3 billion on construc- Exxon to sell ANS gas tion projects in Alaska this year, according to a new forecast compiled by economists with the University of Alaska’s Deal with Fairbanks utility viewed as precedent for larger commercialization effort Institute of Social and Economic Research.
    [Show full text]