I think in some ways that's really the entire issue Alaska has going forward.
There are basically 3 operators in the entire state.
Conoco = 4 rigs
ENI (Italian Public) =1 rig
Hilcorp (Private) = 1 rig
ENI is sun ~30,000 BOD and Conoco and Hilcorp are like ~200,000
A well declines over time so in order to keep your production even level you have to keep drilling, honestly I'm not familiar enough with North Slope decline rates/completion rates to tell you how many.
View attachment 211222
1 rig for ENI probably? increases production
1 rig for Hilcorp, I doubt increases production
4 rigs for Conoco? not sure
Go on ENI's website and try to find anything about Oil, like shell and other European operators they are waaay more green energy conversion train than US companies.
Hilcorp is private so I can't find out much about their plans.
So basically the fate of AK, which uses Oil and Gas taxes for everything, is entirely reliant on 1 company, Conoco. Conoco has said they are spending 1B in Alaska.
To compare to the lower 48, Colorado and Oklahoma produce similar amounts of hydrocarbons to Alaska. Here are the operators + rig count for OK. Now it's shale and therefore a steeper decline curve so it's not a 1 OK rig =1 AK rig... I'm not sure what it is as there is a ton of variability in even OK but... I think it demonstrates how much more diverse the operating environment is...
53 rigs with 7 public operators. Conoco is probably the size (market cap) of the first 10 (excluding XTO) operators combined.
View attachment 211232
But I think the not having all your eggs in one basket, close proximity to infrastructure, good tax and regulatory environment, and cheaper drilling costs means that with Oil prices the way they are we will see Oklahoma grow production more rapidly than AK.