Alaskans deserve an honest conversation about oil and gas — one grounded in facts, not caricatures.

In a recent opinion piece, “Oil companies always tell us the same tired tale. And we fall for it,” Bob Shavelson claims that when industry warns about the impacts of tax policy, it’s just a “tired tale” designed to scare Alaskans. That assertion is easy to make — but it ignores both Alaska’s history and the economic reality facing our state today.

Because this isn’t about rhetoric. It’s about jobs.

Alaska’s oil and gas industry supports more than 70,000 jobs and $6.6 billion in annual wages, according to the McKinley Research Group. These are not abstract “corporate profits.” They are paychecks for welders, mechanics, engineers, truck drivers and small-business owners across Alaska. Entire communities throughout Alaska depend on this activity.

So when tax policy is debated, the stakes are not corporate, they are personal.

This is especially true in Cook Inlet, where private investment has helped sustain Southcentral Alaska’s energy supply. When Hilcorp entered the basin in 2012, it did so as others were exiting and production was declining. Since then, significant private capital has been reinvested to stabilize gas supply for Alaska homes and businesses. More recently, operators like HEX — which doubled its gas production in 2025 — and Glacier have further strengthened that effort, bringing more Southcentral energy online and highlighting exactly the kind of investment Alaska should be encouraging.

The commentary suggests that warnings about investment leaving Alaska are exaggerated or dishonest. But Alaska has already lived through that reality. Under prior tax regimes, investment declined and production dropped sharply. Capital and the companies behind it didn’t vanish overnight — but over time, it moved elsewhere. Alaskans only need to look to the southeast corner of Benson and the Seward Highway in Anchorage for a stark reminder of that.

That is not a threat. It is a pattern.

Alaska competes globally for investment. Companies deciding where to invest billions of dollars look at stability, predictability and the long-term ability to recover investments. When those factors erode, capital flows to places where they are stronger. Ignoring that dynamic doesn’t make it go away.

The commentary also points to recent lease sale success as proof that companies will invest here regardless of policy. That confuses early-stage interest with final decisions. Leasing is a first step. The real test comes when companies decide whether to commit billions to develop those resources. Those decisions depend heavily on fiscal stability.

There is another point the commentary gets wrong: what it means for Alaska to receive a “fair share.”

Alaskans are often reminded — correctly — that our constitution requires our resources to be developed for the maximum benefit of the people. But leaving oil in the ground provides no benefit. Alaska benefits when resources are produced — when workers are employed, when the trans-Alaska pipeline system remains viable and when revenues flow over the long term.

Today, Alaska is seeing the results of policies that support development. A North Slope renaissance is underway. Legacy fields are being revitalized, extending their lives for decades. At the same time, companies are investing in new, greenfield projects that are on the verge of bringing new production online.

Those barrels matter. They sustain the pipeline system, contribute significantly to the state treasury and support thousands of jobs. If throughput declines, those benefits erode quickly.

There is no “status quo” in a declining basin. Without continued investment, production falls. When production falls, jobs disappear, costs rise and state revenues decline.

That is not an industry talking point — it is a physical and economic reality.

The commentary frames this debate as corporations versus Alaskans. That’s a false choice. Alaska’s economy is deeply connected to responsible resource development. When investment slows, it’s not executives who feel it first — it’s Alaska workers, Alaska businesses and Alaska families.

In Cook Inlet, the stakes are even more immediate. The region supplies most of the natural gas for Southcentral Alaska, making investment directly tied to energy security. Policies that discourage private capital risk not just production, but supply reliability for Alaska communities. At a time when Alaska should be encouraging reinvestment, discouraging these investors sends the wrong signal.

A durable fiscal system must balance revenue with global competitiveness. If policy discourages development, there is nothing left to tax and you cannot tax what is not produced.

This is the conversation Alaska should be having — not whether industry warnings are convenient, but whether they are grounded in experience and economic reality. It’s about whether Alaska families have jobs, whether small businesses have customers and whether our state has a sustainable economic future.

We should get that right.

Steve Wackowski is the president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.

Rebecca Logan is the president and CEO of the Alaska Support Industry Alliance.

Together, they represent the overwhelming majority of companies operating in Alaska’s oil and gas sector.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.