By Jim Jansen and Joe Schiernhorn, Co-Chairs of the Keep Alaska Competitive Coalition
Alaska is experiencing an energy renaissance, thanks to a stable fiscal framework that gives businesses and investors the certainty they need to put down roots, create jobs and build a future here.
We have called Alaska home for more than half a century and have seen firsthand how its prosperity rises and falls with the health of our resource-related industries.
From the early days of the pipeline to today’s dynamic economy, one lesson stands out: stability and predictability are the bedrock of success.
We cannot take this success for granted. Alaska is competing every day with other states and countries for investment dollars. Investors have choices, and they look for places where the rules are clear and stable. When Alaska changes its oil tax policy every time there’s a budget shortfall, it sends a message of uncertainty that drives investment elsewhere. With the global economy still recovering from the pandemic and energy markets facing new volatility, this is the absolute worst time to imperil investment by raising the specter of higher taxes.
It is also important to recognize that the majority of revenue needed to run our state government now comes from Permanent Fund earnings, not oil revenue. If we want to reverse this trend and ensure a healthy, diversified fiscal future, we must promote a robust and expanding energy industry. A stable, competitive tax environment does not just benefit the industry— it supports state-funded programs, small businesses, and communities across Alaska.
The leadership shown by our governor and state legislators deserves recognition. By maintaining a steady, competitive fiscal environment, they have sent a clear message: Alaska is open for business, and we are a reliable partner for those willing to invest in our future.
The results speak for themselves. Since the passage of the More Alaska Production Act (SB21), we have seen billions in new investment, a leveling off of oil production decline, and a renewed sense of optimism across our communities. For example:
ConocoPhillips is investing nearly $9 billion in the Willow project, which will nearly double ConocoPhillips’ production in Alaska. The company has hired thousands of skilled contract workers to progress the project while the company continues to invest in exploration opportunities on the North Slope. In addition to Willow and new exploration, ConocoPhillips plans to reinvest $1 billion every year in growing their existing assets. These projects do not just benefit the oil and gas sector; they have a ripple effect, supporting jobs across the supply chain, funding public services, and strengthening the fabric of our state.
Santos and its partner Repsol have spent more than $3 billion to bring on Pikka Phase 1 with first oil expected by this spring. More than 2,000 workers were employed during the peak of construction. They are preparing to extend and expand Pikka beyond the 80,000 barrels per day they will produce with Phase 1. This month, they began drilling a well at Quokka, which looks to be another significant project that will require billions of dollars of new investment and deliver even more production.
Hilcorp is investing billions on the North Slope, employing thousands of workers, tripling production at Milne Point since 2014, stabilizing Prudhoe Bay and drilling the first new well at Point Thomson in over a decade. Hilcorp is also advancing Project Taiga, a $1 billion development project expected to add over 45,000 new barrels per day. In Cook Inlet, Hilcorp continues to invest hundreds of millions annually to deliver critical gas supplies, support local jobs and strengthen Southcentral Alaska’s energy security.
Challenges remain, however. We all know the state faces fiscal pressures, and there are tough choices ahead. But the answer is not to burden our resource industries with new taxes or sudden policy shifts. Instead, we should build on what is working: responsible leadership, a balanced approach to budgeting, and a focus on long-term growth.
Let’s reject short-term thinking and seize the opportunities ahead. By exercising prudent restraint and maintaining a consistent, competitive tax policy, Alaska can secure its long-term position as a global energy leader.
Alaska’s future depends on our ability to keep the state competitive and attractive for investment. Let’s continue to support the policies and leaders who are making that possible. Together, we can ensure that Alaska remains a place where businesses thrive, families prosper, and the next generation can look forward to even greater opportunities.
Now is the time to stay the course.
Jim Jansen is Chairman of Lynden and Co-Chair of the Keep Alaska Competitive Coalition.
Joe Schiernhorn is a Northrim bank retiree and Co-Chair of the Keep Alaska Competitive Coalition.
It’s the old adage to not kill your golden egg laying goose. Maybe our “angry” peers never heard the story that you can certainly cut your prize goose open to get those eggs faster.
But it’s the rest of the story that these same people who are angry that those who make billions dont seem to realize also spent billions don’t know. Dead geese lay no more eggs, and absent oil producers produce no oil or revenue to tax.
Since many elected folks can’t be bothered to read the Constituion, maybe a picture book of the golden goose story could be on the legislatures desks!
Somehow we have to convince the legislature that increasing taxes does not grow an economy!
This is more self-serving propaganda from the oil companies and the industry support alliance. More oil development in Alaska at low taxes may help them, but it doesn’t help the people of Alaska. You should read Brad Keithley’s January 9, 2026 article in the Landmine (available on line) where he shows how little money Alaskans will get under SB21. Or read the January 11 2026 editorial by Joe Paskvan which shows that under SB21, Alaska takes way less money in royalties and production and other taxes than Texas. Texas is hardly an oil-unfriendly state. I suspect that if we compare Alaska’s oil tax regime on an apples-to-apples basis with Norway or other lower 48 states, we will find that the huge dollars the oil companies and support industry alliance spent to communicate misleading concepts like “government take” and scare tactics like “they are going to shut the pipeline down” sold a lousy deal to our credulous public. Sure, lower taxes to near nothing has increased oil production on the slope. If we give away the oil, the oil companies are happy to take it, and the companies that benefit from oil development are happy for the extra work.
Citing leftist propaganda doesn’t constitute factual evidence
Got anything authoritative or independently peer reviewed that addresses the matter?
You call Brad Keithly a leftist? The Landmine leftist propaganda? Have you read the Landmine?
Can you cite anything that shows that Alaska’s oil tax regime is comparable to Norway, Texas, North Dakota?
I am not a leftist. I do want oil production in Alaska. I just want Alaska to get a fair deal, at least as good as the state and royalty owners in Texas.
During the SB21 debate, i kept hearing the proponents say that Alaska’s “government take” was too high, higher than other states. Then i realized that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. In Alaska, the state gets both production taxes and royalties. In other states, often the private sector holds the royalty rights. So to compare Alaska’s government share to other states’ government share is misleading because the other state governments often don’t get royalties.
Scott Rees, commenting above, works on the slope. He obviously makes much more money from oil patch wages than he does from PF dividends, so he doesn’t care if dividends go away as long as he keeps getting that nice oil patch paycheck. The authors of this article are similarly biased. Do you make money off the oil patch? Look back and see how much the oil companies and the support industry alliance spent pushing SB21 through. Why do you think they spent all that money?
It is this article that is oil patch propaganda.
To the author: Get a grip and get better history. Your “billions” remark should be proven and the newcomers to the investment issues should be proven as well. Any article can make things we read look good but write with accuracy instead of marketing junk and lies.
The oil companies have spent billions since SB21 was passed. They really have. The question is what would they have spent if SB21 hadn’t passed. I believe they would have spent less because under SB21, with us giving them such a sweet deal, they are incented to spend a bunch on exploration and production. The question for Alaskans is what is the optimum oil tax regime? Oil companies and people in the oil patch have an incentive to argue that the best oil tax regime is very low because they benefit from a low tax regime. What i want is a balanced tax regime that maximizes what the people of Alaska get. This means enough incentives to stimulate oil exploration and production but not so much incentive that we never get any revenue from that production.
Giving away the oil that we Alaskans own does not make us competitive, it makes us stupid.
We need to diversify as well. Since we’re strengthening our energy backbone, let’s beef it up a bit, shall we? Then we can have data centers. That will produce jobs and more income for locals.