Palmer has left indelible mark on Alaska history
His steady hand has guided major change for good Surprised at the teeth-gnashing in the state Legislature over the natural gas pipeline? Jim Palmer has seen it all before. Many times. Palmer has been witness — and at times, participant — in most of the major public policy changes that made Alaska what it is today. In 1973, he was working in the U.S. Senate for Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel when Congress passed the Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, in which Gravel played a key part. He also was present when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) was enacted. Both were landmark events for Alaska. By the early 1980s, Palmer was in Ju - neau as staff to the state Senate’s Oil and Gas Committee. He joined BP’s Alaska government affairs staff in 1984 and later became Vice President of External Affairs. Palmer guided BP, and helped guide the industry, through intense po- litical storms that rocked Alaska’s oil and gas industry during the 1980s and 1990s. He retired from BP in 2003. Few Alaska politicians today know the industry’s political history in the state. Palmer does, because he lived it. Throughout the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, it seemed politicians were throwing curve balls at industry and serious issues were coming almost every year. Most of these focused on oil taxes, particularly the production taxes. There were self-in- flicted wounds also, like the 1989 Prince William Sound oil spill. While BP wasn’t responsible for the spill, Palmer worked to shield the company from the fallout. But there were times when BP need - ed something also and achieving it could
“Palmer attended BP’s Alaska executive meetings where frequent discussions about cutting costs and purchasing more from out-state-suppliers took place. Palmer pushed hard against this and usually prevailed, arguing that BP needed strong relationships with local companies that employed Alaskans.”
hundreds of millions of dollars. At the time, state administration of- ficials were reluctant to settle back-tax claims for fears of criticism by the Legis- lature. But then-Gov. Walter Hickel and former Attorney General Bruce Botelho, along with BP’s senior management in - cluding Palmer, finally cut through this Gordian knot with a landmark agree- ment on the past tax claims. Part of the deal involved getting more resources for the Department of Revenue to hire tax auditors to prevent another backlog. Sometimes external factors forced events in Alaska that required careful management by Palmer and his BP col - leagues. The BP-ARCO merger in 1990 was one of those. Palmer remembers the day when Richard Campbell, BP’s Alaska president at the time, walked into his office and closed the door. “Sit down, Jim,” Campbell said. “We just bought ARCO.” The news rocked Alaska’s industry. BP and ARCO were the two major op - erating companies on the North Slope with hundreds of employees, contrac- tors and suppliers whose futures were suddenly thrust into uncertainty. Huge political ramifications of the merger had to be managed carefully by Palmer and BP’s senior leadership. Despite the efficiencies gained by
be difficult. For example, the company needed to negotiate a modification to a high net-profits royalty for state leases on what is now the Northstar field. This required a legislative change in statute, a more difficult challenge than stop - ping a tax bill. Palmer was responsible for devising a strategy to enact these Northstar modifications into law. It involved a higher conventional royalty as a tradeoff against the high net profits share. The legislation was signed into law, which was a win for everyone. As part of the agreement, BP would build the large Northstar production plant in Anchorage, then barge it as a module to the North Slope. This was a positive outcome for BP. It not only resulted in the Northstar field being built, which involved sev - eral firsts in Arctic offshore technolo - gy, but it reinforced the idea that Alas- ka was a good place for the company’s London headquarters to invest. “We were always scrambling to get money from London,” Palmer recalls. Had the Legislature turned down the net profits royalty change, it would have been seen as a negative signal, he said. Not all issues involved legislation. There were problems with tax and royalty, and slow audits of the pro- ducers’ tax returns by the state in the 1980s that had huge consequences for BP and other companies, amounting to
Photo by Lee Leschper Jim Palmer, a founding member and board member of the Alaska Oil and Gas Historical Society, has been witness — and at times, participant — in most of the major public policy changes that made Alaska what it is today.
CONTINUED on PAGE 31
29
28
THE LINK: The Official Magazine of the Alaska Support Industry Alliance | SUMMER 2026
www.AlaskaAlliance.com
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online