Posted on 02/16/2011 10:49:44 PM PST by pissant
Have a wonderful remainder of your *evening* y’all. Good night.
:)
Link to credible source please; not just accusation hit and run.
I assume that AK has a Legisture that enacted this law and that Palin did not put in place by decree. Also, from what I’m understanding is that the oil companies are not complaining about the tax law in totality but the tax rate on the extra profit part.
The only "unraveling" going on is in your head. What else do you expect the oil companies to do....ask for HIGHER taxes??
Yes dummy, but under a different agreement, since the majority of the land would remain forever the property of the USA. Are you really this stupid, that you know nothing of what you are running off at the mouth about. The damn oil pipe line was built by the united states, not the little state government.
Nothing ROFL about it. This is precisely the major problem with "big business" (not just "Big Oil", as you put it). Once they have enough money to start buying government officials, it "is" a problem. And one the Founding Fathers were well aware of. We apparently have forgotten that aspect of their wisdom.
Most people know their strengths and weaknesses and accept them. I have to believe pissant’s obsession is his way of dealing with areas of personal “shortcomings”
BINGO!
??? She imposed energy taxes?? Isnt that like Cap-and-Trade?
Despite tax increase, oil profits rise [Excerpt]
By Pat Forgey | JUNEAU EMPIRE
Alaska oil companies have seen their profits rise since Alaska imposed a big, and controversial, tax increase last year.
That’s not what either of the companies said would happen while they were opposing the tax, or even something that legislators who imposed the tax thought would happen.
Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share Act was passed by the Legislature last fall at the request of Gov. Sarah Palin, who said the previous Petroleum Profits Tax was “tainted” by corruption. Some legislators are now serving federal prison time for their role in its passage.
The revelation of the increased profits comes in financial disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by ConocoPhillips Co. and BP over the last several months and reviewed by the Empire.
Those two of the state’s big three oil companies released financial information specific to their Alaska operations.
The state’s third big oil producer, Exxon Mobil Corp., does not break out its Alaska operations, but is thought to be at least as profitable as its competitors. Exxon owns the largest share of Prudhoe Bay, the nation’s largest oil field.
Oil company representatives did not dispute the Empire’s analysis, but declined substantive comment.
The financial reports show that the companies have benefited greatly from soaring oil prices, prices that appear to have outstripped the tax increases for both companies.
“Clearly, oil prices are driving any kind of net income right now,” said Natalie Lowman, spokeswoman for ConocoPhillips.
Net income is the profit left after subtracting the cost of production, taxes and other expenses from total revenue.
BP’s total revenue from Alaska rose from $6 billion in 2006 to $6.6 billion in 2007.
For BP, that meant profits of nearly $2.5 billion in 2007, up more than a quarter billion dollars from $2.2 billion in 2006. The London-based company did not provide Alaska detail for the first quarter of 2008, but companywide profits and profits for the type of operations they conduct in Alaska both rose dramatically.
ConocoPhillips of Houston saw total revenue in Alaska rise from $6.5 billion in 2006 to $7.1 billion in 2007.
ConocoPhillips’ total Alaska profits in 2007 edged down less than $100 million in 2007 to $2.3 billion, but then edged up by more than that in the first quarter of 2008 for a total net gain since the tax increase took place.
The Department of Revenue’s Ian Laing, a special assistant to Commissioner Pat Galvin, said he was not surprised the companies were doing well along with the state.
“It’s important to realize that ACES was never intended to capture all of that excess profit, but to share in that increase,” he said.
Driving the state’s increased revenue, while allowing the company profits to remain high is the structure of the new tax. It is a production tax, calculated before profits are figured. That means some of the state’s increased production tax revenue comes at the expense of state and federal income taxes, which actually declined for both companies.
At the time the tax was being discusses, oil prices were at then-record levels in the $70-$80 per barrel range. Just recently they’ve hit new records in the $130-$140 per barrel range.
“The prices now are something that nobody I’ve been speaking with anticipated,” Laing said.
The ACES tax passed by a divided Legislature last fall by a 2-1 vote in both houses, despite opposition from several powerful legislators.
Among the legislative critics’ big concerns was that the new taxes would reduce investment in the state, a fear the oil companies tried to instill as well.
Since the passage of the ACES tax, however, investment appears to be up.
[More]
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/072108/loc_307197582.shtml
Higher oil prices boost company’s profits from Alaska [Excerpt]
Anchorage Daily News/adn.com
Published: January 26th, 2011 09:53 PM
Last Modified: January 26th, 2011 09:53 PM
Conoco Phillips, the largest oil producer in Alaska, said its profits from Alaska last year totaled $1.735 billion. That compares with a $1.54 billion profit in Alaska in 2009.
Worldwide, the company posted an $11.4 billion profit last year.
The main reason for Conoco’s higher profit from Alaska was higher oil prices.
The company said its average price for Alaska oil last year was $78.61 a barrel, compared with $59.23 a barrel the year before.
[More]
http://www.adn.com/2011/01/26/1669725/higher-oil-prices-boost-companys.html
‘Making it unattractive to do business in Alaska?’ I’m sure there are far less-friendly places. Let me see...
I guess they’re better off having their assets seized doing business in places like Venzuela.
One of the many things that the disingenuous little pissant neglects to mention is that the production tax is only 25% in years when oil prices are high. But in lean years the state reverts to a 10% gross revenue tax on legacy fields that do not require massive continuing inputs of new capital.
- JP
![](http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff499/redmder/FR/SP45/SarahReadyToServe.jpg?t=1297831753";)
Elect Sarah Palin for President 2012
Re-Elect President Sarah Palin 2016
Pretty pathetic. Your handle suits you.
It’s “Going Rogue” not rouge.
Another neglected fact is that, under ACES, new well starts in Alaska through 2Q 2010 relative to the national total INCREASED. Since that time, Obama has started to close down drilling opportunities there as we all know, but well starts are hanging in there because Alaska is a good place for the oil companies to make money. Another article for your file, from Petroleum News:
Buried in the April 26 edition of Petroleum News is an article that, with a little math, tells you 12 percent of ConocoPhillips’ worldwide oil and gas production produced 29 percent of the company’s profits in the first quarter of this year.Unfortunately for Alaskans, the companies' best friends -- the Alaskan RINO Corrupt Bastards Club -- appear to be back in business.That production — approximately 290,000 barrels of oil equivalent out of 2.364 million boe per day worldwide — came from Alaska, and earned Conoco $244 million out of a company-wide total of $840 million in first quarter profit.
It has become a little known fact that Alaska is a good place to make money in the oil business.
A new, much-maligned, production tax was responsible for a large chunk of Conoco’s first quarter profit from Alaska, but the rest came from the company’s efficient business model in the state.
That is a lie. One of many from you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.