Monthly Archives: May 2013

Those of you who read these pages will know that I am transitioning from my role as Partner and Co-Head of the Oil & Gas Practice at Perkins Coie, LLP, to my own consulting firm effective at the beginning of June (now, just 6 days away).  I am looking forward to the transition and having more time to focus on, write about — and work to provide leadership on — what I believe are important issues facing Alaska.  This week I agreed, for example, to move from a bi-monthly to regular monthly column in the Alaska Business Monthly effective July 1, and expand the column to include fiscal issues.

In the course of starting to pack up, however, I learned  that Perkins Coie once again has been named by Chambers and Partners, a firm that provides global rankings of firms and lawyers, as one of the top law firms in Alaska for “Environment, Natural Resources & Regulated Industries.”   Their summary of the firm’s Alaska practice in the area:  Continue reading →

After considerable thought, I have come to the conclusion it’s time to act on something that has been moving from the back to the front of my mind over the past few months – departing my current role as Partner and Co-Chair of the Oil & Gas Practice at Perkins Coie, LLP and opening my own Alaska-based and focused oil and gas consulting firm.

In my opinion, Perkins Coie is in the top tier of Alaska law firms and it has been an honor over the past five years to partner not only with some of the most skilled lawyers in Alaska, but also the nation. Eric Fjelstad, the Managing Partner of the firm’s Anchorage office, is the best environmental and resource project lawyer with whom it has been my privilege to work at any point in my career and I look forward to continuing that relationship as future opportunities arise.

But there are certain limitations that come with that territory. Continue reading →

As reported on these pages, yesterday the Government of Norway announced that it was increasing its oil tax rate a moderate amount.  In reporting on the increase we explained that it had to do mostly with the Government’s attempt to balance activity between the country’s petroleum and non-petroleum sectors  and warned that the increase had very little relevance to Alaska’s continuing debate over oil taxes.

Indeed, if there is any relevance, the Government’s action re-enforces Alaska’s use of oil taxes to affect economic activity.

As reported in the story by Financial Times on the increase, and as we explained in the column yesterday, the Government is enacting the tax increase consciously in order to slow activity in the oil sector.  “Projects in Norway’s offshore sector, which accounts for a fifth of the country’s gross domestic product, have run into huge delays and cost overruns, reducing government revenue ….” Continue reading →