Alaska v. Amerada Hess et al., officially known as State v. Amerada Hess et al. (1JU-77-877) was a 15-year-long civil lawsuit levied by the state of Alaska against 17 of the world's largest oil companies for underpayment of oil production royalties. The case was named after Amerada Hess, the first company in the alphabetical list of defendants. The case cost the state more than $100 million to prosecute, and all 17 companies settled out of court rather than face trial. The total settlements amounted to just over $600 million of the $902 million the state alleged had been underpaid. Additional settlements covering underpaid natural gas royalties and refining royalties amounted to another $400 million.
Under a law passed by the Alaska Legislature, the settlement money was invested in a separate account of the Alaska Permanent Fund. The Amerada Hess account, worth more than $424 million as of June 30, 2013, may not be used for the payment of Alaska Permanent Fund Dividends and instead is used for infrastructure projects. Since the case was settled, it has been used as an example of oil industry malfeasance in political and popular arguments.
Background
In 1955, representatives from across Alaska met at the University of Alaska to draft the Alaska Constitution, a document that would not become effective until 1959, when Alaska became a state. Many of the delegates were aware that the new state would be heavily dependent upon development of its natural resources, an attitude typified by a speech made by Bob Bartlett, then Alaska's non-voting delegate to Congress: "The financial welfare of the future state and the well-being of its present and unborn citizens depend upon the wise administration and oversight of these [resource] development activities, [and] without adequate safeguards, the state of Alaska will wend a precarious way along the road that leads eventually to financial insolvency."[1]
In response to the concerns of Bartlett and others, the resulting constitution requires the Alaska Legislature to maximize resource development for the "benefit of its people." To provide a concrete tool for that goal, the constitution authorizes legislators to "provide for the leasing of ... any part of the public domain."[2]
While most governments at the time raised revenue through production taxes, conservation taxes, income taxes and property taxes, allowing the leasing of public land meant the state could also garner bonuses, rent, and royalties from anyone leasing public land for development. In Alaska, especially in relation to oil production, a bonus is the amount paid by a company for the right to lease a piece of property. Rent is the amount paid on a regular basis to maintain that lease. A royalty is a portion of anything produced by that piece of land.[3]
After statehood, one of the first actions of the Alaska Legislature was to pass the Alaska Lands Act, which established the framework for Alaska's oil revenue system. The Alaska Lands Act created a bonus and rent system and established that the state must collect a royalty of at least 12.5 percent from its leased public land.[4] To implement the Alaska Lands Act, the state created a master lease agreement, named DL-1. Under the terms of the agreement, the royalty (which could be paid in oil or cash value) was to be assessed on the value of the oil "at the well."[4]
In 1964, oil companies began exploring state land on Alaska's North Slope for oil deposits. On. December 26, 1967, the 40-person crew of Prudhoe Bay State No. 1 well heard a noise that one geologist said sounded like the rumbling of four jumbo jets. It was an enormous plume of natural gas signifying the discovery of the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field.[5] On September 10, 1969, the state held an oil lease sale for Prudhoe Bay and netted more than $900 million. Eight years and one of the world's largest construction projects later, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was ready to ship its first oil to Valdez, Alaska and shipment outside the state.
In the weeks before shipments began, the state learned that the oil companies had a different interpretation of the terms of DL-1 than the state did. The state sent letters and proposals to resolve the agreement, then set a deadline of September 1, 1977, for them to respond. When no response was received, the state filed a formal court complaint in Alaska Superior Court against all 18 companies leasing oil-producing ground on the North Slope.[6]
Charges
In its complaint against the oil companies, the state said the oil companies were interpreting the phrase "at the well" incorrectly and were thus violating the terms of the Prudhoe Bay lease agreement. This came to be known as the "where" argument. At Prudhoe Bay, crude oil comes out of the ground thick, under great pressure, and mixed with substances including water, butane and pentane. During the crude oil production process, the pressure must be reduced and suspended substances must be removed. Only once this has taken place does the oil enter the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system at Pump Station No. 1. At the pump station are "Lease Automatic Custody Meters" that measure the flow through the pipeline.[7] The state argued that the proper place to measure the royalty oil was at the LACT meters, after it had been purified and readied for transport. This oil was worth more than the raw crude oil, and the oil companies favored a measuring point before purification. Such a measurement would lower their royalty payments to the state because the oil would be worth less.[7]
The state also said producers were incorrectly valuing the royalty oil in their reports to the state and improperly "determining, allocating, computing or otherwise accounting" for expenses that could be deducted from royalty payments.[8] According to the master lease, the state's royalty value was supposed to be the highest of three formulas: the actual market price at the well; the posted price at the field; or the prevailing price other producers got at the well. None of those methods worked at Prudhoe Bay because there were no buyers on the North Slope. In place of those formulas, the state figured out a "netback" pricing formula to determine the value of the oil at the oil well by subtracting transportation costs from a hypothetical value at one of two markets, the West Coast or the Gulf Coast. The state alleged that the oil companies understated the value of their oil and overstated their transportation costs.[9]
'Where' argument
In November 1977, the state of Alaska filed for summary judgment on the first count of its lawsuit, the so-called "where" argument. The state argued that using the LACT meters as a measuring point was an appropriate interpretation of "at the well," because before that point, the oil was not marketable and ready for transport. In oral arguments before Alaska Superior Court judge Allen Compton in December 1978, the state compared oil extraction to the logging industry. When a tree is cut down, it must first be stripped of branches and bark before it is taken to a mill for refinement into lumber. The state also pointed to the fact that oil fields on the Kenai Peninsula and Cook Inlet had used LACT meters as the definition of "at the well" with no prior argument.[10]
The oil companies responded that using the LACT meters was a practice inspired by federal rules, and when the state crafted its constitution, it had intended to move away from federal rules. Therefore, it was not appropriate to base Prudhoe Bay royalties on prior practices established in southern Alaska before statehood.[11]
In April 1979, Compton ruled in favor of the state, saying the LACT meters were the appropriate point for measurement and that it was improper to take deductions before that point. Following his initial ruling, however, the process of reviewing his decision turned into a 17-month affair that ended in August 1980 when the litigants agreed to settle the issue out of court. Both sides agreed that the LACT meters were the correct location for measurement, but the state agreed to allow a field cost deduction of 42 cents per barrel for pre-1980 oil and 42 cents times the result of the Producer Price Index for the previous year, divided by the PPI for June 1977, for post-1980 oil.[12]
Delays
In the years that followed the settlement on count one of the lawsuit, the case was repeatedly delayed by the legal maneuvering of both parties. Contemporary and historical accounts, however, place most of the blame for the delays on the oil companies. "The disputed millions of dollars, after all, were literally in [the oil companies'] pockets; they were making interest on it, and they were in no hurry to get rid of it," wrote William Johnson in a history of the case.[13]
Judge Compton stepped down from the case due to personal reasons and was replaced by Rodger Pegues in 1982. Soon after his appointment, it was revealed that he had worked for several oil companies as an attorney in Alaska. This created a potential conflict of interest, and Superior Court Judge Walter Carpeneti replaced Pegues on September 9, 1983.[14] In December 1982, Bill Sheffield, a Democrat, replaced Jay Hammond, a Republican as governor of Alaska. Under the new administration, the state became more aggressive about prosecuting its case.[15] In spring 1983, the state amended its lawsuit with a claim for damages, saying producers had shorted it $902 million between 1977 and 1986. Since six years of royalties were contested, the state was persuaded that it was owed a sizable amount.[14]
As the case moved into its discovery phase, the state requested several years' worth of oil company records but was met with stern opposition. The companies involved believed that those records could provide an advantage to their competitors if they were made public. In 1984, the state agreed to a protective order: The records taken in discovery could be labeled either confidential or "highly confidential." Under the former designation, they were kept with normal courtroom secrecy. Under the latter designation, the documents were kept under tighter protection determined by both sides in the lawsuit.[16]
Federal court
In 1987, one day before Judge Carpeneti was to set a trial date, Standard Oil, Chevron Corporation and Exxon asked to transfer the case to federal court. Based on the existence of the Alaska Permanent Fund, they claimed that they could not receive a fair trial in Alaska because any potential jurors were potential recipients of the proceeds of the case.[17] The Permanent Fund, established by governor Hammond to receive profits from the state's oil taxation and royalty system, is designed to distribute an annual dividend payment to all Alaska residents who have lived in the state for at least one year. In their complaint, the companies said a trial could result in a $2 billion windfall for the state, worth $1,200 per Alaskan if distributed through the Permanent Fund.[18]
Federal district court judge Andrew Kleinfeld heard the case but recused himself because he was an Alaska resident and thus a Permanent Fund Dividend recipient. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals assigned Robert C. Belloni, a non-Alaskan, to the case. In June 1988, he ruled that the case could go forward but that there were constitutional concerns that needed to be addressed.[19] The oil companies appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court in an attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out, based on Belloni's findings, but the court ruled that would be premature without giving the state time to respond. In 1989 and again in 1991, the Alaska Legislature passed legislation that required any proceeds from the Amerada Hess case be set aside in a separate account of the Permanent Fund, inaccessible to the dividend program.[20] The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and the case returned to Alaska Superior Court, where it moved toward trial.[21]
Settlement
Starting in 1989, the oil companies sued by the state of Alaska began to settle out of court rather than face a trial. Amerada Hess Corp. was the pioneer of this approach, agreeing in December 1989 to pay the state $319,000 to settle its part of the lawsuit, the full amount claimed by the state plus costs, interest and attorneys' fees.[22] ARCO, which was accused of shorting the state of more than $320 million in royalty payments and interest, was the second company to settle. It paid $287 million, about 60 percent of the amount the state was seeking, and the state agreed to drop a $100 million fraud lawsuit against ARCO as well.[23][24]
The two settlements set a precedent, and one by one, other producers settled with the state.[25][26][27] The lone holdout was Exxon, which was alleged to owe $170 million. It waited until the day jury selection began before agreeing to pay $128.5 million to close the case.[28]
While Exxon was the last of the defendants in the original Amerada Hess case, the state spent four more years prosecuting lawsuits against subsidiary companies affected by the issue. These included refineries and companies that produced or transported liquefied natural gas products through the Trans-Alaska pipeline system.[29] The last of these cases was settled out of court in April 1995, putting an end to the last aspects of the Amerada Hess case.[30]
After the lawsuit
In total, the state spent nearly $100 million building its lawsuit and earned about $1 billion in total settlements.[31] The result of the case have been contested as either a victory for the oil companies or for the state. While Alaska's government received almost $1 billion in windfall revenue, it gave up hundreds of millions of dollars to achieve that settlement.[32] The size of the case and the time needed to achieve a result has resulted in it becoming a common example of the need in Alaska politics to keep a careful watch on oil company activities.[33]
Under the 1991 legislation approved by the Alaska Legislature, 75 percent of the Amerada Hess proceeds were deposited in the Alaska Constitutional Budget Reserve. The remaining quarter was deposited in a special account of the Alaska Permanent Fund.[31] According to the 2013 annual report of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, the Hess account had a balance of $424,399,000 as of June 30, 2013.[34]
Related Research Articles
Alaska is a non-contiguous U.S. state on the northwest extremity of North America. It borders British Columbia and Yukon in Canada to the east and it shares a western maritime border in the Bering Strait with Russia's Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. The Chukchi and Beaufort Seas of the Arctic Ocean lie to the north and the Pacific Ocean lies to the south. Technically a semi-exclave of the U.S., Alaska is the largest exclave in the world.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a major environmental disaster that made worldwide headlines in the spring of 1989 and occurred in Alaska's Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989. The spill occurred when Exxon Valdez, an oil supertanker owned by Exxon Shipping Company, bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef, 6 mi (9.7 km) west of Tatitlek, Alaska at 12:04 a.m. The tanker spilled approximately 10.8 million US gallons (260,000 bbl) of crude oil over the next few days.
The Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) is a constitutionally established permanent fund managed by a state-owned corporation, the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC). It was established in Alaska in 1976 by Article 9, Section 15 of the Alaska State Constitution under Governor Jay Hammond and Attorney General Avrum Gross. From February 1976 until April 1980, the Department of Revenue Treasury Division managed the state's Permanent Fund assets, until, in 1980, the Alaska State Legislature created the APFC.
The Alyeska consortium refers to the major oil companies that own and operate the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) through the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is an oil transportation system spanning Alaska, including the trans-Alaska crude-oil pipeline, 12 pump stations, several hundred miles of feeder pipelines, and the Valdez Marine Terminal. TAPS is one of the world's largest pipeline systems. The core pipeline itself, which is commonly called the Alaska pipeline, trans-Alaska pipeline, or Alyeska pipeline,, is an 800-mile (1,287 km) long, 48-inch (1.22 m) diameter pipeline that conveys oil from Prudhoe Bay, on Alaska's North Slope, south to Valdez, on the shores of Prince William Sound in southcentral Alaska. The crude oil pipeline is privately owned by the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.
Jay Sterner Hammond was an American politician of the Republican Party, who served as the fourth governor of Alaska from 1974 to 1982. Hammond was born in Troy, New York and served as a Marine Corps fighter pilot in World War II with the Black Sheep Squadron. In 1946, he moved to Alaska where he worked as a bush pilot. Hammond served as a state representative from 1959 to 1965 and as a state senator from 1967 to 1973. From 1972 until 1974 he was the mayor of the Bristol Bay Borough. Then, in 1974, he was elected governor of Alaska.
Keith Harvey Miller was an American Republican politician from Alaska. Miller was the second secretary of state of Alaska under Walter Hickel. He became the third governor of Alaska after Hickel’s resignation to become U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Under his tenure, Alaska came into sudden wealth after an oil lease sale on the North Slope created a revenue of $900 million.
Hess Corporation is an American global independent energy company involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. It was formed by the merger of Hess Oil and Chemical and Amerada Petroleum in 1968. Leon Hess served as CEO from the early 1960s through 1995, after which his son John B Hess succeeded him as chairman and CEO. The company has agreed to be acquired by rival oil company Chevron.
The history of Alaska dates back to the Upper Paleolithic period, when foraging groups crossed the Bering land bridge into what is now western Alaska. At the time of European contact by the Russian explorers, the area was populated by Alaska Native groups. The name "Alaska" derives from the Aleut word Alaxsxaq, meaning "mainland".
The Alaska gas pipeline is a joint project of TransCanada Corp. and ExxonMobil Corp. to develop a natural gas pipeline under the AGIA, a.k.a. the Alaska Gas Inducement Act, adopted by Alaska Legislature in 2007. The project originally proposed two options during its open season offering over a three-month period from April 30 to July 30, 2010. An 'open season' in layman's terms is when a company conducts a non-binding show of interest or poll in the marketplace, they ask potential customers "if we build it, will you come?".
Jack J. Grynberg was an American businessman. He was a Denver-based oil and gas developer who amassed a multibillion-dollar fortune in the oil and natural gas sector.
Prudhoe Bay Oil Field is a large oil field on Alaska's North Slope. It is the largest oil field in North America, covering 213,543 acres (86,418 ha) and originally contained approximately 25 billion barrels (4.0×109 m3) of oil. The amount of recoverable oil in the field is more than double that of the next largest field in the United States by acreage (the East Texas Oil Field), while the largest by reserves is the Permian Basin (North America). The field was operated by BP; partners were ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips until August 2019; when BP sold all its Alaska assets to Hilcorp.
The Prudhoe Bay oil spill was an oil spill that was discovered on March 2, 2006, at a pipeline owned by BP Exploration, Alaska (BPXA) in western Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Initial estimates of the five-day leak said that up to 267,000 US gallons (6,400 bbl) were spilled over 1.9 acres (7,700 m2), making it the largest oil spill on Alaska's north slope to date. Alaska's unified command ratified the volume of crude oil spilled as 212,252 US gallons (5,053.6 bbl) in March 2008. The spill originated from a 0.25-inch (0.64 cm) hole in a 34-inch (86 cm) diameter pipeline. The pipeline was decommissioned and later replaced with a 20-inch (51 cm) diameter pipeline with its own pipeline inspection gauge (pig) launch and recovery sites for easier inspection.
William Mark Lanier is an American trial lawyer and founder and CEO of the Lanier Law Firm. He has led a number of high profile product litigation suits resulting in billions of dollars in damages, including Johnson & Johnson baby powder and Merck & Co.'s Vioxx drug.
AMD v. Intel was a private antitrust lawsuit, filed in the United States by Advanced Micro Devices ("AMD") against Intel Corporation in June 2005.
The State of Alaska is both a producer and consumer of natural gas. In 2006, Alaska consumed 180.4 Bcf of natural gas.
In a report compiled by the government of Alaska, the real GDP of Alaska was $51.1 billion in 2011, $52.9 billion in 2012 and $51.5 billion in 2013. The drop-off that occurred between 2012 and 2013 has been attributed to the decline in the mining sector, specifically the oil and gas sectors, a consequence of declined production. The state's economy has been described by University of Alaska Anchorage economist Scott Goldsmith as a "three-legged stool" - with one leg being the petroleum and gas industry, the second leg being the federal government and the third leg being all other industries and services. Between 2004 and 2006, the federal government was responsible for 135,000 Alaska jobs, the petroleum sector provided 110,000 jobs and all other industries and services combined for 122,000 jobs.
Marvin Dale Mangus (1924–2009) was an American geologist and landscape painter. He was giving the honor of driving a purely symbolic wood stake prior to start of drilling the actual oil well by the Atlantic Richfield Corporation, his employer. The focus of his later art career was glorified role of geologist and other exploration of Alaska. He painted animals and birds and was recognized with awards from The National Park Service
Seward's Success was a planned community proposed for Point MacKenzie, north of Anchorage, Alaska, United States. The megaproject was to be fully enclosed by a dome spanning the Knik Arm and holding a community of 40,000 residents, with ample residential, office, recreational and commercial space. It was proposed in 1968 after the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay and scuttled in 1972 by a delay to the development of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. is a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, with its headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska. The company has major lease holdings on the North Slope and is Alaska's largest producer of oil and gas, employing about 1,000 persons.
References
Bleakley, Geoffrey T. A Policy History of Alaska Oil Lands Administration, 1953-1974. Washington State University, Pullman: 1996.
Johnson, William R. Alaska v. Amerada Hess: Alaska litigates for oil royalties, 1977-1992. Washington State University, Pullman: 2005.
Yergin, Daniel. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power. Simon & Schuster, New York: 1991.
Notes
↑ Doogan, G. Michael. "Alaska Mineral Revenues," Alaska Geographic 9, No. 4 (1982), p. 200.
↑ Alaska Constitution, Article VIII, sections 1, 2, and 8.
Coyne, Amanda and Hopfinger, Tony. Crude Awakening: Money, Mavericks, and Mayhem in Alaska. Nation Books, 2011. ISBN9781568584478
Haycox, Stephen. Frigid Embrace: Politics, Economics, and Environment in Alaska. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Ore.: 2002. ISBN9780870715365
LaRocca, Joe. Alaska Agonistes: The Age of Petroleum, how Big Oil bought Alaska. Professional Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.: 2003.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
