PDA

View Full Version : Energy Subsidies Look They're on the Way


adios
06-03-2003, 06:30 PM
A reprint:

ConocoPhillips, Apache May Benefit From Plan for Tax Breaks

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- ConocoPhillips, Apache Corp. and other energy producers may benefit from a proposal by U.S. lawmakers to offer $7.4 billion in tax breaks and other incentives to help develop domestic supplies of oil and gas. The proposals would authorize construction of a natural-gas pipeline in Alaska and encourage companies to boost exploration. The U.S. Senate is expected to resume debate on a comprehensive energy bill today after a weeklong Memorial Day recess. The incentives, expected to be added to the bill, would help companies find gas wells, said Obie O'Brien, Apache's director of governmental and regulatory affairs. ``We've kind of picked the low-hanging fruit'' of gas reserves in the continental U.S., O'Brien said. ``Now what we're going after is gas that's deeper and in tighter formations.''

Houston-based Apache explores for natural gas and oil. The provisions are among $15 billion in tax breaks to spur development of traditional and renewable energy supplies. One $2.6 billion break would allow companies to deduct costs for exploring for new wells over 24 months, changing a tax code that stretches deductions over as much as eight years. ``It gets money back into the system to find more oil and gas,'' said Lee Fuller, vice president of government relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, an industry lobbyist.

Alaska Pipeline

A provision in the Senate energy bill, supported by Republicans and Democrats, would authorize a $20 billion, 3,600-mile pipeline to connect Prudhoe Bay's oil and natural-gas fields in Alaska to Alberta, Canada. It would hook into existing pipelines, sending 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily to the lower 48 states. Its supporters have said it would use 5 million tons of steel, create 400,000 jobs and require the largest gas-treatment plants ever built. Construction would take eight years.

ConocoPhillips, which operates an oil field on Alaska's North Slope with Anadarko Petroleum Corp., said it needs the pipeline to move natural gas out of the state. The gas, a byproduct of oil drilling, is currently injected into underground reservoirs, ConocoPhillips spokesman Sam Falcona said. ``We put back in the ground every day 8 billion cubic feet of natural gas. We could sure use that down here,'' Falcona said. ``The best way to get it down is through a pipeline.''


Gas Prices

Senator Jeff Bingaman, senior Democrat on the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, has argued that the project would do more to create jobs and wean the U.S. from foreign energy supplies than the Bush administration's plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Bingaman, who proposed the pipeline in 2001, has picked up the support of Senator Pete Domenici, his fellow New Mexican and the energy panel's chairman. The pipeline proposal previously stalled in Congress over concerns among energy companies and some Republicans about declining natural-gas prices. The administration has said it won't support the pipeline unless gas prices increase and stabilize. Bingaman, Senate Minority Tom Daschle and Senator John Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, wrote a letter to President George W. Bush last month asking him to reconsider. ``Given the inevitable volatility of gas prices over the 50-year life of this project, this administration position effectively means that no pipeline will be built,'' they wrote.

The tax breaks for oil and gas producers are expected to be introduced by Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the Finance Committee chairman; and the panel's senior Democrat, Senator Max Baucus. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is a supporter of the proposals. ``Without these incentives it becomes very difficult to go out and find the kind of gas that is necessary to keep the market where it ought to be,'' said Justin Stiefel, Murkowski's chief of staff.

AceHigh
06-03-2003, 08:17 PM
I heard it costs $2.50 to pump a barrel of Saudi oil, $10 to pump a barrel of US oil and $1 a barrel to pump Iraqi oil. It has to do with the flow rates of the oil wells, and Iraqi oil wells have the highest flow rates in the world.

I wonder if the US companies in Alaska will be able to compete with the US companies with the Iraqi contracts, with or without the tax breaks.

Why dig for oil in Alaska when we just gained access to the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world and the cheapest oil in the world?

Iraq also has large reserves of Natural Gas.

An article on Iraqi oil.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/oil.htm

example of Iraqi oil flow.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnm24833.htm

adios
06-03-2003, 10:43 PM
Wow! Excellent post IMO. To be quite honest with you I don't know how feasible it is to import natural gas from Iraq. I know that liquified natural gas (LNG) can be imported but I'm not sure what the status is regarding the US's capability to import and store LNG. Of course you're dead right about the relative productions costs. Be advised that the following may be convoluted and drawn out. I made a post a few weeks ago about Senator Leiberman's energy proposals. Basically what he proposed was a shift of the demand curve to the left if you will for oil consumption in the USA. I pointed out in my post that this would lower the price of oil which would tend to squeeze the marginally profitable producers out of the market. The Saudis and the Iraqis (when Iraqis get their capacity up to snuff) produce oil at the lowest costs. Therefore a decrease in demand would tend to strengthen their position and tend to make the USA more dependent on their oil. However, subsidies could help marginally profitable oil producers stay in business and make profits. Also alternative energy sources could reduce our reliance as well conceivably since we simply could eliminate the need for fossil fuel. That seems like a long way off to me. The situation with natural gas is a lot more acute in that a lot of electricity production depends on natural gas. The price of oil and natural gas have been rising lately. I'm long a few of the energy companies due to this situation. Personally I would hate to see the environment threatened by what Bush proposes in Alaska.