Posted on 09/09/2008 12:59:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The dems want to tax the oil companies like Palin has taxed the oil companies like you indicate you want to tax the oil companies.
There is a big conflict between the GOP position on taxing oil companies and the GOP Veep's position on taxing oil companies.
Kids used to go up to work on crab boats and come home with that kind of money. Dangerous he-man jobs pay well compared with the same in the lower 48. Cost of living is high, so it’s just the same economy with different decimal points for workers who live there year round, I suppose.
As I suspected, you have no argument.
Here's a clue:
When an oil company in Louisiana drills on its own land and is taxed by the state of Louisiana it is a very different thing, morally and fiscally, from an oil company in Alaska drilling on state land and being charged rent by the state of Alaska for drilling on land that the company does not own.
A fiscal conservative has a responsibility to manage state assets so that they yield the highest possible return for their owners - the citizens of Alaska.
A fiscal conservative does not give oil that belongs to the taxpayers away for free.
In the 4th paragraph of the article: 3/4 of the value of the oil is taken before the oil is permitted to leave(separate from) the state.
You sound like Chuck Schumer.
Semantics.
Essentially you are arguing that Alaskans shouldn't be able to decide at what price they will part with the oil they own.
But it's theirs, and they can dictate the price.
You sound like Chuck Schumer.
Actually obfuscation of simple issues, a la Chuck, seems to be more of your bag. Not mine.
If you don't like the price, don't buy it. But stop acting as if you have a right to pay whatever price you name for something that belongs to someone else.
Part of Alaska’s constitution - put together when they said “sure - we’ll be a state” is that the natural resources of Alaska are the property of Alaska’s citizens (the “state”). I think it is the only state that does this. The citizens own the mineral rights, logging rights, etc. In Louisiana the land owner may or may not own the mineral rights, but if he does, can sell the rights to the oil company.
Hence the $2,200 annual check, plus last year’s extra check to cover higher fuel, plus no taxes, etc.
Also - the revised tax system that Palin pushed through on the oil companies gives incentives for exploration and development, increases competition, as well as taxing the companies more. The old tax code was formed under allegations of “good old boy” graft giving BP(?) a better deal over others with allegations of kick-backs if I recall some of the articles I’ve read.
Also - the natural gas pipeline that had been considered back during the 70’s embargo (30 years ago!!) was pushed through by Palin. I’m pretty sure she didn’t hold a gun to the various private companies that have already started work on it (mainly geotechnical and environmental studies to date).
That is exactly what is happening.
"BP said it would develop projects on federal land, which is not subject to Alaska's taxes"
Conoco-Phillips said it will not invest 300 million previously budgeted.
And the biggest kicker is that the oil companies have said screw Palin, we will build our own pipeline.
Murkowski wanted to raise taxes on the oil companies and use the money to build the pipeline. The oil companies were ok with that.
Then Palin tells the voters, "we deserve more". Vote for me and I'll raise taxes on the oil companies and give it to us deserving Alaskans, which she did. Then she would build the pipeline and force the oil companies to use the pipeline at an exorbitant cost, with proceeds flowing back to the state.
Here's another article that better explains Palin's tax scheme.
The underlying problem is that the North Slope oil field is old and playing out. The infrastructure(including the pipeline) is corroded and wearing out.
I think we all feel that way as they sound more and more psychotic in their terror over a strong, competent woman. The wonder is that any of us ever took any of them seriously before. Not any more.
From a search found the following from a science article from the University in Fairbanks, July 2008. It was just given the go ahead for another 30 years. BTW, it is now running at 50% capacity - but ANWR is only 55 miles to tap into it. Also, if Murkowski’s deal for a new pipeline was so great, how come the oil companies didn’t take it?
“Strung over and beneath the surface of Alaska from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, the trans-Alaska pipeline, at 31 years old, is entering its second lifetime. The four-foot in diameter, half-inch-thick steel pipe had an original design lifespan of 30 years. The State of Alaska and the U.S. Department of the Interior recently gave the pipeline the green light for another 30 years of operation.
“It’s like a car,” said Johnson, who works for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, while standing under the pipeline near Fairbanks during a recent permafrost conference lecture. “As long as you maintain it, it’ll continue to work.”
Correct. The older the car, the more maintenance needed.
As for the gas pipeline, the oil companies did take it, they approved Murkowski's plan. They negotiated the deal with Murkowski.
Thanks for getting me out there to learn more. They did NOT take Murkowski’s deal. (See Murkowski’s daughter applauding Palin). They also did not take Palin’s deal! Palin set up a deal with TransCanada pipeline. BP and ConocoPhillips, just before the vote on the TransCanada pipeline said “we’ll build our own”.
So, if the BP-ConocoPhillips pipeline wasn’t just a political ploy, there will be increased competition with two pipelines (assuming Exxon uses the TransCanada pipeline).
From an April, 2008 article on the net:
The tax question long has been a sticking point on a gas line.
Tuesday’s announcement, however, showed how much ground the oil companies have surrendered in their demands of the state. Two years ago, under Palin’s predecessor, Frank Murkowski, the trio of BP, Conoco and Exxon insisted they needed a tax freeze not only on gas but oil as well, and they negotiated a gas pipeline contract to that effect.
But the contract was politically unpopular and faded before lawmakers ever voted on it.
Now the state appears on the brink of possibly awarding a license, cash and other incentives to TransCanada.
TIMING QUESTIONED
That BP struck a partnership with Conoco and announced it Tuesday, with only five days left in the regular legislative session, struck many lawmakers as shrewd timing.
Sen. Hollis French, D-Anchorage, said the partnership could chisel away at the will of many lawmakers to grant a license to TransCanada, which unlike the oil companies doesn’t control any of the North Slope’s prodigious 35 trillion cubic feet of gas.
“I hope Alaskans are viewing this with the skeptical eye it deserves,” French said. “It could potentially confuse people about the reality of a TransCanada pipeline with the illusion of a producer line.”
Of course, neither TransCanada nor any other company has promised to actually start welding pipe.
Wasilla Republican Sen. Charlie Huggins, an ex-Army colonel and chairman of the Senate Resources Committee, sounded excited about BP and Conoco competing with TransCanada for a pipeline.
“In the military vernacular, this puts Alaska on the high ground,” he said.
Huggins noted BP and Conoco said they’d use their own money, $600 million, to plan the pipeline while TransCanada wants a $500 million subsidy from the state.
That subsidy money, he said, could build a lot of schools and pave a lot of roads.
House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, said he visited Tuesday with BP and Conoco executives at the Capitol and they said their project is real.
Harris and others said they believe Exxon eventually will join the partnership if BP and Conoco move ahead with a pipeline.
Tuesday’s events seemed to echo the procession seen under the Murkowski administration, when Conoco was the first to show interest in a gas line, followed by BP and then Exxon.
Margaret Ross, an Exxon spokeswoman in Houston, said the company learned of the BP alliance with Conoco a few days ago and will need time to see whether their approach will lead to a “commercially viable development.”
TRANSCANADA HOLDS FIRM
Steve Porter, a former Conoco employee and deputy state revenue commissioner now advising the Legislature on the gas line, said he believes TransCanada doesn’t really want to build or own the Alaska portion of a pipeline.
And even if TransCanada doesn’t get the state license or build the pipeline, it’s still likely to achieve a major objective — having Alaska gas flow into its extensive North American pipeline network once it reaches Alberta, Porter said.
Tony Palmer, TransCanada’s vice president for Alaska business development, said his company is awaiting word May 19 on whether the Palin administration will recommend the company for the state license. He said TransCanada stands firm on its AGIA bid and welcomes the North Slope oil companies as either competitors or partners.
As to whether the BP-Conoco partnership could cause members of Alaska’s House and Senate to waver and vote against a TransCanada license, Palmer said: “I do believe both bodies are sophisticated and are fully capable of comparing our proposal to any others.”
Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the former governor’s daughter, said an alliance of two oil companies controlling more than 60 percent of Slope gas is “great news for Alaska.” She said she hopes TransCanada and Exxon soon join the partnership.
And she complimented Palin.
“By her tough stance over the past two years, she has brought the companies around to building a gas line now,” Murkowski said.
Well I’m a student too. Does it still exist?
Hahaha.
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.