Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She also raised taxes on businesses while slashing taxes on property. She used earmarks from DC to pay for things like water and sewer projects. She used local taxes to pay for a sports complex.
McCain has said he opposes Obama's idea of a windfall tax on oil companies. Meanwhile, Palin did just that and sent the residents of Alaska a $1200 energy rebate each year. Turns out McCain was also for the windfall tax before he forgot and turned against it.
I would like to thank you for demonstrating your ignorance, or at least lack of preparation, to the class. All oil companies operating in Alaska pay royalties to the state; it's part of the deal. The mineral resources of Alaska belong to its citizens and the companies are paying the citizens to be allowed to harvest them. The royalties are in many cases paid as a percentage of actual production, e.g. 20% of the oil produced belongs to the state, so when the price of oil rises and Alaska's share is sold the money gets deposited in the fund. Since the state is flush with cash as a necessary result of rising oil prices Palin sent each family a check from the surplus. This wasn't a "windfall" tax, it was a distribution of unexpected and excess revenue. There is a big difference. It also true that Palin changed the royalty agreements with the oil companies but the changes weren't in response to rising prices; they were changed because Murkowski changed them to favor the oil companies and Palin changed them back. This is not a "windfall tax." A windfall tax is a direct money grab wherein a government targets a single industry or company because it appears to have funds to be targeted. Please learn the difference.
(BTW...I am a former petroleum engineer who actually worked in Kenai, AK and know what I am talking about because I've seen the royalty numbers for one of the production platforms in the Cook Inlet. You had best do some thorough self education if you want to discuss oil and Alaska.)
You are splitting hairs, windfall tax/"profit sharing" it still is the same as Obama's plan which McCain opposes.
Now "oil man" why hasn't your industry drilled on the 68 million acres of land they are leasing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by finaltable
I would like to thank you for demonstrating your ignorance, or at least lack of preparation, to the class. All oil companies operating in Alaska pay royalties to the state; it's part of the deal. The mineral resources of Alaska belong to its citizens and the companies are paying the citizens to be allowed to harvest them. The royalties are in many cases paid as a percentage of actual production, e.g. 20% of the oil produced belongs to the state, so when the price of oil rises and Alaska's share is sold the money gets deposited in the fund. Since the state is flush with cash as a necessary result of rising oil prices Palin sent each family a check from the surplus. This wasn't a "windfall" tax, it was a distribution of unexpected and excess revenue. There is a big difference. It also true that Palin changed the royalty agreements with the oil companies but the changes weren't in response to rising prices; they were changed because Murkowski changed them to favor the oil companies and Palin changed them back. This is not a "windfall tax." A windfall tax is a direct money grab wherein a government targets a single industry or company because it appears to have funds to be targeted. Please learn the difference.
(BTW...I am a former petroleum engineer who actually worked in Kenai, AK and know what I am talking about because I've seen the royalty numbers for one of the production platforms in the Cook Inlet. You had best do some thorough self education if you want to discuss oil and Alaska.)
First of all, it isn't splitting hairs. In the case of enjoying increased revenue from royalties, the royalty rate (in the case of my platform, 1 out of every 5 barrels produced or 1 of 5 cubic feet of gas with an allowance for platform operations) the rate stands regardless of the price of oil or natural gas. In the case of a windfall profit, a taxing entity says "You are enjoying an unusual and unexpected level of profitability so we are going to take more from you because you have it to take." In one case both parties rise and fall as partners. In the other, one benefits in boom times and the other must go hat in hand to ask for relief in down times. A very different situation altogether.
Concerning production on current leases, first of all, I don't know why a particular field has or has not been drilled. Not all fields are created equal. The overlying rock may be more difficult to drill, the formation may be found to have poor permeability and the oil downhole may be of poor quality, like Venezuela's is. Given the cost of operating a drilling rig, often in excess of six figures a day, you're looking at seven figures to drill a single exploratory hole and while our ability to "strike oil" has improved significantly one success in three attempts is still pretty good. Once you have found oil underground it takes multiple holes to produce any kind of volume, my platform had 32 wells drilled and produced about 50K bbls per day of which only about 18% was oil (the rest being water.) There are a limited number of offshore drilling platforms available to drill in deep water and building new ones takes years and right now every available patform is operating.
Unfortunately, because of the way things work, a company cannot (and wouldn't anyway) drill on land to which it doesn't have the rights so every possible piece of land must be leased before it can be considered for drilling. Oil production works very much on the idea of going after the next lowest hanging fruit but once the lowest are gone the decision is made to go for the next. While more difficult to get than before, it is still easier than things that are higher. Compare the idea drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to drilling under the Arctic ice cap. Oil may be under the ice but the latter will be significantly more costly.
The current sustained price of oil plays a significant role in this decision making: oil costing $120/bbl to produce that may have been profitable to produce at $150/bbl doesn't look so great at today's price of $102. Before a company makes the commitment to spend tens of millions of dollars to drill exploratory wells, build a platform and put it in place it better be very sure that it can pay for it. These factors are the reason that the protections and tax subsidies exist for the oil companies; without the assurance that there is some chance of getting a reasonable return on investment over time nobody would do this and yet our world cannot exist without oil, even if 100% of the population drove electric cars. Eliminating these exploration tax credits sounds good in a world of $150/bbl oil but what happens when the cost of production and exploration goes much higher or the price falls as consumers reduce demand?
(BTW...I am no longer in the industry and haven't been for more than a decade so I can't guarantee all my numbers are current. I can tell you what I know of petroleum economics and actual production though.)
Every town in America with poor infrastructure has taken on LONG TERM debt to fix it, it is a normal.
You make it out like she got them in debt and got nothing in return.
The town is booming, she fixed roads, bridges, schools, buildings etc and created many news jobs doing so.
Ask the current mayor about her, she has said that Palin turned a poor run down town into a blossoming thriving town.
Get your facts straight! and at least tell the truth or both sides of it.
You also failed to mention that because of her Alaska as a state has a huge surplus of money.
My kids school is 15 million in debt, dam that principle anyway!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
