A terrible time to increase oil taxes

by Jim Jansen and Joe Schierhorn
Jun 9, 2020

With the pandemic threatening our lives and our livelihood, oil prices at rock bottom, the loss of the visitor industry for the season and commercial seafood at risk, this is a terrible time to raise oil production taxes by as much as 300%.

Ballot Measure 1 is a vicious and dangerous attack on the future of our state. It sends the message that “If you invest here, we will increase your taxes every time we run out of money.”

People say this is an oil company issue. It’s not. It’s an Alaska issue. Oil companies can take their money and invest it anywhere in the world — and they will.

But where do the rest of us go?

This is where we have our homes, families, jobs and businesses.

This is where we plan a future for our kids and grandkids.

Where do we go when the pipeline shuts down, the jobs dry up, home values collapse and there is no one left to support our tax base, our charities and our economic way of life?

Other industries, like mining, tourism, seafood, and the many service businesses, will ask the question: Who’s next? Why would they want to invest here? Why would anyone invest in a state that is trying to kill itself?

Proponents of Ballot Measure 1 imply that the oil industry pays little or no taxes. That’s wrong. In the past five years, according to information provided in a prior article by oil economist Roger Marks, the oil industry paid an average of almost $3 billion per year in taxes and royalties and kept about $1 billion. That’s a government take of 74% of the pretax value. The Lower 48 government take was about 64%.

Increased oil production is the best solution to Alaska’s budget problems. The oil industry has plans to spend $24 billion over the next 10 years, which could boost our oil production by several hundred thousand barrels per day. This investment would stop — and oil production would decline to dangerous levels — if we overtax this important industry. Why risk driving away what a 2019 study by the McDowell group noted is a $5 billion annual payroll, 77,000 jobs, $4 billion in annual payments to Alaska businesses? This money runs throughout our economy and supports so many charities and events that provide needed services to so many in our state.

We are extremely concerned that if Ballot Measure 1 were to pass, it would begin an economic death spiral for Alaska. Our economy is fragile, and this initiative could tip us over the edge.

They call this the “Fair Share Act”:

• Is it fair that you will no longer have a job?

• Is it fair that your house will be worth less?

• Is it fair that your children will have little to no opportunity to stay and work in Alaska if this initiative passes?

• Is it fair that there is no industry left to pay for government services, our schools and support our charities?

A better name would be “The Job Killer Act of 2020.”

We have a choice:

• More oil or more taxes

• A strong economy or recession

• Jobs or no jobs

This is not the time to destroy what we have left in Alaska.

Jim Jansen is chairman of the Lynden Companies, a co-founder of the KEEP Alaska Competitive Coalition and member of the OneAlaska campaign. Joe Schierhorn is president and CEO of Northrim Bank, co-chair of the KEEP Alaska Competitive Coalition and a member of the OneAlaska campaign.

Success of Alaska’s oil and gas industry remains crucial to our economy

By Jim Calvin

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, seen near Copper Center on Tuesday, September 9, 2014. (Loren Holmes / ADN)

Oil prices have plunged in the past few weeks, a result of global market forces and COVID-19. With jobs and government revenue sure to be affected, it is useful to consider how a drop in oil prices played out in Alaska before.

McDowell Group recently completed a comprehensive analysis of the oil and gas industry’s role in Alaska’s economy. For many years, we have tracked jobs and wages associated with industry spending and payments to government. This analysis was different, coming on the heels of a recession in Alaska driven mainly by a sharp drop in oil prices and revenues. Oil prices started sliding in late 2014, falling from $110 per barrel to $30 per barrel by 2016. Oil and gas industry spending and employment sank, as did tax and royalty revenue to the state of Alaska. All told, Alaska lost 12,000 jobs before emerging from recession in 2019. Like Alaska’s economy, the oil and gas industry is again on the rise, adding 500 jobs in 2019.

Though the oil and gas industry downsized during the recession — nationally and in Alaska — it remains a critical component of the Alaska economy. Oil industry spending supported 41,800 jobs and $3.1 billion in wages in 2018, including all multiplier effects. This tally of employment does not include nonresidents employed by the oil and gas industry in Alaska. The 17 companies that produce, transport, and refine oil and gas are the heart of Alaska’s oil industry, spending $4.4 billion in Alaska in 2018. In all, 84% of these companies’ employees are Alaska residents, earning 83% of oil industry wages paid in Alaska.

The industry also paid $3.1 billion in taxes and royalties to state and local governments in 2018. As government uses oil-related taxes and royalties to fund operations, programs and capital projects, thousands of public and private sector jobs are created. Government spending of oil-related taxes and royalties accounted for an additional 29,300 jobs and $1.5 billion in wages in Alaska. The Permanent Fund, and the dividends it generates for Alaskans, is a legacy economic impact of the oil and gas industry. PFD spending in Alaska supports 6,500 jobs and $260 million in annual wages.

All told, including jobs related to private sector spending and payments to government, the oil and gas industry accounted for 77,600 jobs and $4.8 billion in wages — 24% of all wage and salary jobs and 27% of all wages in Alaska in 2018. For each job with Alaska’s 17 oil and gas producers, pipeline companies and refineries, there are 15 additional jobs in the Alaska economy connected to the oil and gas industry. No other industry in Alaska can match the employment footprint of the oil and gas industry.

Alaska oil production has been declining steadily since 1988, when we produced 25% of all U.S. oil. Now Alaska accounts for 4% of domestic U.S. production, and just a small fraction — 0.6% — of global production. While U.S. oil production outside Alaska grew 143% between 2008 and 2018 — largely due to rapid growth in North Dakota, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma — Alaska production declined 30%.

Recent history has proven that a healthy oil and gas industry is essential to Alaska’s economic well-being. That fact, coupled with our much-diminished role as an oil producer and another severe drop in oil price, underscores the importance of keeping Alaska an attractive and competitive place for oil industry investment.

Jim Calvin is McDowell Group’s senior vice president and senior economist. McDowell Group is Alaska’s oldest and largest full-service research and consulting firm.

The oil tax initiative: Fair for whom?

By Roger Marks

The 800-mile Trans-Alaska pipeline snakes its way across the tundra north of Fairbanks. (AP Photo/Al Grillo, File)

Alaska’s constitution provides for “utilization, development, and conservation of … resources … for the maximum benefit of the people.” What is maximum benefit? Cash to the state? Short-term cash? Long-term? Jobs? Income? Environmental quality? Who knows?

Then there is the idea of the state getting its “fair share.” What is fair? For eons, philosophers, theologians, lawyers, economist and countless others have pondered this. There is currently a ballot initiative to raise oil taxes called “The Fair Share Act.”

Most economists would say fairness entails taxes being competitive; taxpayers should pay a similar amount to what they pay in other similar places. Otherwise investment will go elsewhere and production suffers. As measured by percentage of net pre-tax profits going to the state and federal government, the current system is competitive. (Including the “credits,” which do not really function as credits, but rather provide progressivity to the system.)

Presently, the state alone is getting 45% of the net profits at current prices. It would get 64% under the initiative. (These calculations are mine, based on public data.)

On their website, the initiative sponsors call for gross revenues (market price less transportation cost) to be split one-third each to the state, the federal government and the taxpayers. Ascribing and measuring shares of gross revenues going to the three entities makes no sense. Currently, gross revenues are about $50 per barrel. Half of this are upstream development costs; this share of gross revenues go to no one, but is incurred by taxpayers. Per the sponsors’ approach, if you spend $25 to develop oil and sell it for $50, you’ve made $50.

In an Aug. 2018 op-ed, the initiative sponsor lamented that between 2009–2015, taxes had declined from $12 per barrel to $2 per barrel even though oil prices had stayed similar. What was not mentioned was that between those years, upstream costs had increased from $17 per barrel to $40 per barrel. So even with the lower taxes, taxpayers’ after-tax profits were $10 per barrel less.

Most moralists would agree that for something to be fair it needs to be fair to both sides. Generally in the world there is a basic risk/reward symmetry between how taxpayers and governments share downside price risk and upside potential. Either the taxpayers assume downside risk and realize upside potential, or the government does.

The initiative raises taxes at low prices, high prices, and in-between. At prices under $45 per barrel the taxpayers would lose money while the state makes several dollars per barrel. At high prices, the marginal tax rate would be 70%. The taxpayer assumes the downside risk and the state gets the upside potential. It is a classic “heads I win, tails you lose” scheme.

As easy as it is to be cynical about laws that are the outcome of the legislative process, they could be much worse. At least that process provides many checks and balances to the initial subjectivity of a single legislator that may be embedded in early drafts.

For a bill to become a law it will be reviewed by a number of legislators in the initial committee, be analyzed by experts, receive public input, go on to other committees, the body as a whole (House or Senate), and go through the same process in the other body. Along the way, there are exchanges of ideas and the proposition is modified.

In the end, it will be subject to a multiplicity of perspectives and information. The initial favoritism gets tempered. This ultimately results in decisions that are better than could have been made by any single member.

That is the problem with ballot initiatives. They are statutes drafted by a small number of like-minded sponsors. If passed, the Legislature cannot touch them for two years. It’s “take-it-or-leave-it” lawmaking without the balanced review good legislation needs.

The initiative sponsors have not stated what is fair, how they justify it, how they measure it or how the initiative attains fairness. They better have some basis, because economically it is a mess.

Roger Marks is an economist in private practice in Anchorage. He formerly served as a petroleum economist with the Tax Division in the Alaska Department of Revenue.

Alaska’s had a great ride, but it’s not sustainable.


Dear KEEP Supporter,

As you know, the KEEP Alaska Competitive Coalition, 5,000 members strong, is a broad based group of native corporations, businesses, unions and individual Alaskans who share one common objective: We care deeply about our state and its economic future.

Our mission is to promote investment in resource development and secure Alaska’s economic future by advocating for a durable, sustainable and balanced state fiscal plan that provides for stable, competitive tax policies.  We recognize Alaska must address its fiscal crisis, and make meaningful progress toward fixing it, so that our oil industry, and all of our resource industries, can survive and prosper.

The oil industry has paid for almost 90% of Alaska’s government. Oil has funded our schools, roads, airports and public safety. Oil strongly supports our charities and has created about 1/3 of Alaska’s jobs. Oil has funded Alaska’s $55 billion dollar permanent fund and has allowed Alaskans the luxury of not having to pay state income or sales taxes.

But, times have changed. It’s been a great ride, but it’s not sustainable.

Oil production has fallen to ¼ of its peak, our pipeline is ¾ empty and oil prices are low. While our General Fund budget has been reduced over the past three years, it still must be reduced further.

Alaska is in a recession due to low oil prices and an unsustainable fiscal situation that discourages investment. Threats to raise taxes on our resources industries also discourage investment.

We will have to compete for investment or we will fail. We will have to continue to reduce the cost of state government. We will have to utilize earnings from our $55 billion dollar permanent fund on a sustainable basis, to help pay for state services. We will need to reduce the amount of our PFD checks. And we may have to start paying our own way, with some form of new taxes if necessary.

We must do all this without taxing away all of the incentives of our resource industries that invest heavily in our state and create jobs.

And, we must change now or accept a worsened economy. With every delay we forgo many of the options that are on the table now and also face elimination of the dividend program out of necessity.

Now is the time for action. We cannot continue to kick the can down the road.

This is where the KEEP Alaska Competitive Coalition can make a difference. We must urge our employees, colleagues, friends, family and others  to contact their legislator and ask them to create and support a solution to Alaska’s fiscal crisis. Action must be taken this legislative session and should include cuts, restructuring the permanent fund, and may include new taxes such as an income tax, a sales tax, motor fuel tax and/or other miscellaneous consumption taxes.

And we must remind our representatives in Juneau to not kill our resource industries with unstable tax policies and over taxation in the process.

KEEP has developed a toolkit, similar to what we did during the Vote No on 1 campaign, which will help us deliver our message. The toolkit includes a short video which succinctly explains our fiscal crisis, and our options to fix it, as well as a PowerPoint presentation and printable fact sheet. We have updated our website and now have a social media component where you can review our latest posts and join the conversation.

Once again, thank you for your support of the KEEP Alaska Competitive Coalition. We look forward to working with you to ensure Alaska will be open for business for years to come.

 

Jim Jansen
Co-chair
Keep Alaska Competitive
Marc Langland
Co-chair
Keep Alaska Competitive

Letter from the co-chairs

arctic rig

 

We thought the fight was over when voters rejected Ballot Measure 1, which sought to repeal SB 21, the More Alaska Production Act. But here we are, less than two years later, facing another battle over oil taxes.

Gov. Bill Walker has introduced legislation that dramatically changes the tax system by raising the minimum production tax by 25 percent for some — and imposing a new tax for others — and repealing anchor tax credits.

This latest tax hike comes at a time when oil prices are hovering at prices not seen since the crash in the 1980s. It comes at a time when it costs more to produce a barrel of North Slope oil than it’s worth, which has led to negative cash flows.

We are asking you to continue our fight for Alaska’s future. We need you to contact your legislators and tell them that our resource industries are the last place we should look for funding as they are all swimming in an ocean of red ink.

We have updated the KEEP website, added new background information and posted a new fact sheet that explains the situation. You will also find additional information on our Facebook page and the E-blasts we will be sending on a regular basis.

Our state is facing a massive fiscal crisis unseen in more than 30 years. We applaud the Governor and legislators who are willing to put Alaska’s long-term economic future ahead of short-term politics. There is nothing more important for our state than to solve our budget deficit and build a sustainable economic future for our state, but we can’t do it on the backs of an ailing industry that already pays most of Alaska’s bills.

Fortunately, we have the financial resources to not only survive — but prosper. What we need now is the courage to responsibly continue to drive down the cost of state government and utilize the permanent fund as intended, to fund state services. We may eventually need to pay taxes ourselves; however, the last place we should look for new revenue is to unfairly tax the very industries that drive our economic future. If we push them away, our economic future will be hopeless.

This is a time for Alaskans to support responsible fiscal policy.

Sincerely,
Marc Langland & Jim Jansen
Co-Chairs, KEEP Alaska Competitive

Ouch! Is anyone listening?

More bad news from the ratings agencies. Moody’s issued its new rating for Alaska’s general obligation debt, downgrading us from Aaa to Aa1, with a continued negative outlook. This comes on the heels of Standard & Poor’s, which lowered the state’s outlook from “stable” to “negative” last year and kicked it down another notch in January from AAA to AA+ as it warned Alaska to get its financial house in order. Fitch, the state’s third rater, has Alaska on a negative market watch.  “The gap has been growing — the oil prices have been unrelenting in their decline,” noted Gabe Petek, S&P’s chief Alaska analyst. “We don’t operate oblivious to how policymakers are proceeding in their thinking about how to plan for the upcoming budget year.”

From Fitch: “Fitch will resolve the Watch after analyzing the state’s enacted budget for fiscal 2017, which begins on July 1. The ‘AAA’ rating would likely be assigned a Negative Outlook or downgraded if, in Fitch’s view, enacted budget measures do not support appropriate levels of long-term financial flexibility relative to the state’s revenue structure.”

Click here to see all the rating reports and the governor’s response.

Tax reform works – even at $30/barrel oil

Should anyone question the impact of SB 21 and Alaska’s anchor tax credits, tell them to look north – and south. Despite staggering industry loses around the world, the North Slope and Cook Inlet are humming with important projects.

In fact, the capital infusion since SB 21 became law reduced North Slope production decline to a mere 1 percent last year.

Here’s a summary of projects:

After completing its first exploration well in Smith Bay, Caelus Energy is drilling its second well. Smith Bay is a promising prospect offshore NPR-A. Caelus is continuing with development activities in its Oooguruk unit, including the Nuna development, which could produce new oil for our pipeline right around the corner, but only with a stable fiscal terms and some price rebound.

The new Conoco-Phillips CD-5 development is performing much better than expected, reaching peak production of 16,000 b/d. The company is now drilling the ninth of 15 production and injector wells and plans a new exploration well near CD-5. Activity remains brisk in NPR-A with development of a production site at GMT-1 and planning for GMT-2. In other news, the company’s Alaska operations escaped another round of capital budget reductions virtually unscathed, thanks to tax reform.

BP is aggressively re-energizing Prudhoe Bay with the completion of eight wells, 46 new sidetrack wells and 420 well workovers last year.

Hilcorp plans 10 development wells and 16 well workovers on its North Slope fields this year.

88 Energy and partner Burgandy Xploration completed a test well of shale resources 65 miles south of Deadhorse and are now conducting extensive seismic in the area.

Arctic Slope Regional Corp.’s AEX subsidiary is drilling a well on ASRC-owed state leases and Great Bear Petroleum has a large seismic program under way.

Oil production in Cook Inlet now averages 18,000 b/d, the highest since 2011, primarily due to Hilcorp. The company has invested more than $1 billion in Cook Inlet projects and drilled over 50 wells. “It’s no secret that Alaska’s tax credit system and the Cook Inlet Recovery act were key drivers in bringing Hilcorp to Alaska in our investments to date,” Hilcorp recently told House Resources. You can read their testimony here.

Also in Cook Inlet, Furie Operating Alaska is selling gas from its new platform and has a jack-up rig en route to Alaska.

Jim Jansen’s legislative session testimony, March 2016

House Resources Committee  — March 2, 2016 (video)

Chairman Nageak (Chairman Talerico) and members of the House Resources Committee, my name is Jim Jansen, Chairman of Lynden and Co-Chair of the Keep Alaska Competitive Coalition.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening.

By way of introduction, Lynden is an Alaska, truck, marine and air Transportation Company who operates throughout the state with about 1,000 Alaska employees and hundreds of service partners.

The KEEP Alaska Competitive Coalition was founded as the Make Alaska Competitive Coalition in 2011 to advocate for change in Alaska’s oil tax policy to encourage investment in Alaska.   As you may recall, production declined by more than 200,000 barrels a day under the uncompetitive tax policy called ACES.

KEEP is a broad-based group of approximately 8,000 Alaskans, Alaska businesses, Native corporations, individuals and organized labor. We received no funding from the oil industry. After the defeat of the SB 21 referendum, we thought we could retire our coalition but here we are, facing another proposed change, which will send Alaska backward in oil tax policy.

I came to Alaska as a truck driver in 1967, and other than my military service,  have lived in Alaska ever since.  Alaska was my home before North Slope oil. I operated a trucking business thru the post-pipeline construction recession, and led Lynden since the recession of the 1980s.
Vicki and I have lived the dream in this great state, both from a business and personal perspective, fueled by a strong economy, driven by our resource industries. Personal and business opportunities over the past 49 years make us feel like the luckiest people on earth. I am now nearing the end of my working career, and have focused much of my energy on the future of the next generation of Alaskan’s.

I am here today because I am afraid that Alaska may revert to the economy I faced in 1967. An economy, without the North Slope would be devastating for Alaska, and Lynden. At Lynden, we would be facing massive layoffs of our outstanding Alaska employees – as our state speeded towards economic ruin. I don’t scare easily, but I can tell you that I fear for our State and Lynden’s people, if the legislature tries to solve Alaska’s fiscal problems by imposing unreasonable taxes on our resource industries.

How we deal with our fiscal challenge will determine if we retain the Alaska we have enjoyed since the development of Prudhoe Bay. Alaska needs to adjust, to live within our means, but we cannot do it on the backs of our resource industries. We may have to sacrifice a portion of our PFD and we may need to pay taxes, too.

To put my testimony in perspective, first let’s acknowledge the situation we find ourselves in with $30/bbl. oil prices.  We all know the size of our current deficit and we all know we need to deal with it sooner rather than later.

Our state is facing a massive fiscal crisis unseen in more than 30 years. We thank the Legislators and the Governor who are willing to put Alaska’s long- term economic future ahead of short-term politics. There is nothing more important for our state than to solve our budget deficit and build a sustainable economic future for our State, but, we can’t do it on the backs of an ailing industry that already pays most of Alaska’s bills.

I agree conceptually with much of the Governor’s plan:  use of the permanent fund earnings, reduction of our dividend program, reducing the operating budget, and instituting some new taxes. One part of the Governor’s plan that does concern me, however, is the proposal for yet another change to our oil tax policy.

I have three main points that I wish to make this evening:

  1. Increasing oil taxes and reducing credits at a time when the industry is losing money on Alaska production sends the wrong message to an industry that has responded well to our desire to see more investment and more production – even at a time when oil prices have plunged.
  1. Maintaining a healthy oil/gas industry in Alaska is vital to our future if we want to keep oil flowing through the pipeline and keep alive any serious prospect for a gas line.
  1. As we deal with the painful economic transition caused by low prices, we need to be mindful to protect the viability of all of our resource industries as they continue to be a major source of employment and income to Alaskans – not to mention important taxpayers.

While passage of SB 21 does a better job of protecting revenues at low oil prices than the prior tax structure, HB247 raises the tax from 4 to 5%, and eliminates loss credits, adding a new tax burden to the petroleum industry at a time it is losing approximately $22 for each barrel of North Slope oil produced.  Changing the credits is effectively a tax increase.  As a state, we wanted the industry to produce oil that we know is more expensive to get out of the ground – and we promised them an incentive to do so. They did just that.

Despite these sobering times, the industry has upheld the commitment it made when the Legislature passed SB 21, the More Alaska Production Act.  It pledged to increase investment – and it did, to the tune of $5 billion.  That investment has led to more production and a leveling off of the production decline through the pipeline.

Industry is still investing substantially more in Alaska, than other regions because SB21 encourages investment. Compare Alaska to North Dakota, Texas, Canada – and most other oil provinces, and we can be extremely thankful we are living and working in Alaska today.

An increased tax on the petroleum industry today, would send a terrible message, namely, that Alaska is a high-risk tax environment and that we are an unreliable partner who does not live up to its commitments. A natural response from the industry would be to curtail their investments here and move them to a more stable and profitable oil province. We would have made it very easy for them to cease investment here.

What do you think would happen today, if Lynden told an oil company today, that we will be raising your freight rates by 25 percent?  Obviously, they would shift their business to our competitors. Alaska, like Lynden, competes for investment, and this is the wrong time to increase rates.

HB247 would mark the sixth major tax change in 11 years. Attracting investment requires a fair and stable tax structure.  Tax credit policy should not be a whip-saw for filling the budget deficit; it should be a thoughtful approach to a stable and growing economy.

Our oil production peaked at over 2 million barrels per day and is now approximately 500,000 per day.  To keep a minimum flow in the pipeline and to obtain the value of what oil remains in our state, we need the industry to continue drilling, continue investing, and to have enough faith in us as predictable and reliable partners to invest $50 to $60 billion in a gas line.  Continually changing our tax structure makes us predictable in the wrong sense.

The oil and gas industry, like the mining and fishing industries, provides a major source of good-paying jobs in our economy and hopefully will continue to do so well into the future.  The tough choices that we have to make to reduce our deficit need to be done in a way that minimizes the shock to our economy in the next several years and are mindful of the economic base that we need for our future.

We are fortunate to have almost $60 billion in savings to help us with the transition towards an investment-based budget.  Let’s start using the earnings of those savings as suggested by the Governor, Senator McGuire, Representative Millett and Representative Hawker, along with a reduced budget and carefully considered taxes and user fees to close the gap.

We all know that taxes on our resource industries are politically easier than taxes on our residents.  But our resource industries are the last place we should look for quick tax revenue.  They are the backbone of our economy, and in the case of oil and gas, they are swimming in an ocean of red ink.    Raising taxes on the resource industries are the surest way to drive away investment, which is the only way to grow the economy.

Fortunately we have the financial resources to not only survive – but prosper. What we need now is the courage to responsibly continue to drive down the cost of state government and utilize the permanent fund as intended, to fund state services. We will need to pay taxes ourselves; however, the last place we should look for new revenue is to unfairly tax the very industries that drive our economic future.  ‎If we push them away, our economic future will be hopeless.

This is a time for Alaskans to support responsible fiscal policy.

Thank you.

Projects Still Moving on Slope

It may be cold and snowy outside, but there’s some hot news from the North Slope.
Not only is new oil flowing at ConocoPhillips’ new CD-5 drillsite, but the feds approved a drilling permit and right-of-way for the producer’s proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 1 oil development project in the NPR-A (See related story).

Peak production at CD-5 is expected to be about 16,000 barrels per day. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is ConocoPhillips’ minority partner, and mineral rights are held by Arctic Slope Regional Corp.

To the south, a small independent called 88 Energy has “spudded” a new exploration well to test the oil production potential of the large shale formations. The Icewine well is planned to drill to 11,600 feet with a goal of examining the HRZ Zone. 88 Energy is the second company probing the North Slope shales, the other being independent Great Bear Petroleum.

You can read more here.

First oil flows, thanks to innovative bridge

bridge-largeWhen ConocoPhillips began producing the first-ever oil from the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska this fall, the moment was hailed as a triumph of perseverance ­– and a victory for oil tax reform.

But the pad and the project itself couldn’t have happened without some innovative bridge engineering. That’s because the 6-mile road to CD-5 area crossed a 1,400-foot-wide section of the Coleville River called the Nigliq Channel.

See how ConocoPhillips engineers and subcontractors overcame the challenge to build an environmentally friendly, and safe, river crossing in just two winter construction seasons – and put new oil into the pipeline.