What Palin Really Did To the Oil Industry

The Wall Street Journal ^ | SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 | JAMES P. LUCIER JR.

[The Bronze Titan]

Oil companies in Alaska are paying more money in taxes than ever before. The state's oil and gas tax revenues for its just-ended fiscal 2007 topped $10 billion. That's twice as much as fiscal 2006 and four times more than 2004. Some supporters of Barack Obama see that money coming in and say that John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, must have done what Sen. Obama wants to do -- sock those companies with a big fat windfall profit tax. This is a deeply misleading reading of her 2007 tax reform.

...continued HERE.

[gardencatz]

Wouldn’t this be sort of like a rental property? If the people “own” it wouldn’t the oil companies have to “rent” it? And does it matter whether any other state does it? If we truly believe in states rights then what Alaska does is their business.

Cindie

[Osage Orange]

Number one....Palin isn't an Energy EXPERT. And NONE of the past 10 POTUS have been.

Secondly....if you own the property that is being drilled in TEXAS and in OK....you get paid. Even in OSAGE Co, OK....where the Osage Tribe owns all the minerals...you will get paid for access.

Thirdly...I'd be hard pressed to give up my property rights...so everyone in my state could get a check.

[hosepipe]

[ However, with so much of Alaska land tied up as Federal land - the fed’s can prevent them from getting to their resources (ANWR). ]

True.. that is why I said what I said..
The federal government OWNING State land or ANY resources is UN-constitutional..
The federal government should be a VASSAL of the States..
The States should NOT BE VASSALs of the federal government..

Because thats exactly what is at stake here..
and the difference between a republic and a democracy..

The federal government has NO Business interfering in the affairs within a State.. making State government a slave.. or a vassal..

For we have three governments in the United States..
1) Federal..
2) State...
3) Local

and the federal government is ONLY needed for disputes between the States..
Communism(socialism) blurs that distinction..
ALL democrats and many republicans are IGNORANT of these FACT(S)..

except for the COMMUNISTS among them.. THEY DO KNOW...
ever head of Saul Alinsky?..and Cloward-Piven?...

[rwrcpa1]

What these articles never seem to tell you is that the price of oil makes a huge difference in the revenue collected. Nominal Average prices- 2004 $37.66 2006 $58.30 2010 $71.21 Source: http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp

She did what was best for her state. Murkowski's plan was a failure, and easy to manipulate net profits. Her plan raised revenue and also improved incentives for developing new resources. If the Feds would get out of the way even more production would be developed.

[RinaseaofDs]

No one’s asking you to, but with the vast amount of state and federal land, there’s an incentive for you to at least back this plan for oil and mineral companies that want to develop on state or federal property.

As for your property rights, it wouldn’t be unscientific, or very difficult, to draw property lines that extend to the very center of the earth, and further it wouldn’t be hard to say that any mineral or oil accessed outside of those lines would be a violation of someone elses property right.

I was pretty specific in saying that if the find extended 1000’s of square miles, yet were accessed on a small piece of property, then claiming ownership of all of that is absurd.

It wouldn’t be a situation of you giving up property rights so that everyone in the state could get a check. It would be a case of disallowing you from tunneling underneath someone else’s land to get minerals, or in the case of oil, draining another landowner’s share of that well by over extracting from your own.

You’d probably not like it if I were an adjacent land owner and drilled horizontally to get at your resources.

If the resource isn’t owned by you, but exists within state property boundaries, what’s your beef with that?

I think we should be harvesting state and federal forests here in WA state, and GIVING EVERYONE A CHECK. Perhaps had we done that, Gray’s Harbor County wouldn’t have two people left in it, thanks to the spotted oil.

Nope, instead it went to the state, that frittered it away for nobody can remember now, and when the greenies had kittens about the poor owls, the Seattlites had to school the mouthbreathers that made the lumber for their houses on Lake Washington.

I’m telling you, there is nothing like getting a check from the state that says, “Here’s your share of the state’s forest/oil/mineral/hydro holdings. Together we can ensure jobs and ecology for generations to come.”

Then that same knee-jerk, greedy attitude toward ripping away your mineral rights can start working at scale for a change.

You see, after all, greed is good. Greed works. Greed cuts through, clarifies, and captures the evolutionary spirit.

And I’ll tell you something else - you wouldn’t have an immigration problem either. Ask an Alaska Freeper about those defrauding Alaska in terms of state citizenship. When there’s a CHECK at stake, and someone proposes adding more people to divide the pot, people get a lot more practical about matters of illegal immigration.

The problem would disappear. I can’t imagine what California would look like today if they’d have adopted an Alaska model for forests/oil/minerals/hydro. You think they would have tolerated an outright invasion from Mexico?

[thackney]

BP Liberty field was never a point of contention.

All those comments about sitting on Lease are directed to ExxonMobil at Point Thomson.

Gov Palin had no negotiations with BP about Liberty. It was ExxonMobil at Point Thomson.

[The Bronze Titan]

-"the Tax enacted under Governor Palin is too high and needs to be reduced."

"Too high" is a relative term in this situation, because you are dealing with a changing market commodity from year to year (comparing 2007 to 2011), let alone day to day, week to week, month to month. Combined with the fact that the "SELLER" (State of Alaska) is trying to get the most (i.e. "Revenue" for what they own. Contrast that with the Federal Government (or any other state government) where they are actually "Taxing" something for which they DO NOT OWN!

We conservatives believe that the 'Government' does not OWN the right to our 'fruits and labor' (Liberals believe otherwise). So, in the respect that we are debating the degree of "Taxation" on OUR fruits and labor by the Government, in the case of Alaskan Oil, the State/Citizens are the "owners" of such oil, and the "Revenue" is the "Compensation" for the worth of that asset.

The State of Alaska needs to find a "competitive revenue formula" for the best compensation for their asset, that will get them the most for their asset while at the same time keeping their ASSET competitive in the market place for development.

That's why the Report says that Alaska, in considering a modified and more competitive "revenue formula" may need to give up some "Short Term Revenue" for "Long Term Development".

[Lorianne]

Okay.
But what does that have to do with my post?

[Osage Orange]

Is Palin an expert on energy? I will ask that question again...Will you answer?

"thanks to the spotted oil"...what's a spotted oil?

Just kidding,... that..actually made me laugh.

So...greed is good for some...but bad for others? Ha!!

I might be interested in states paying citizens of said states...portions of profits from state assets. Instead of going to "the state"...which is a black hole.

You are suggesting some things that aren't really able to be totally verified. So...let's say I live over the Ogallala aquifer...Should I receive payment for those that take water from it?

Heck....I live on some dirt that others live on too. Should I get a piece of the gravel operation down the road?

Hell the wind blows thru my property before it blows thru the wind farm. Should I be getting a piece of that?

Fun to think about........

[Lorianne]

Yes, but why do the oil and minerals belong to the people who just happen to live in Alaska RIGHT NOW. This is the concept I’m having a hard time with.

[The Bronze Titan]

-"Let's see ...what do reasonable folks here think..should local government tax businesses and give part of that money to the local population as cash? Does any other state do this?"

We're mixing apples and oranges when we trying to compare or apply similar thinking from the "Alaska Oil" situation to other businesses elsewhere in terms of the issue of a 'tax'

Alaska (the State/Citizens) "owns" the oil. They (the State/Citizens) are the "Seller". They (the State/Citizens) are entitled to a "profit" (revenue) from the removal/use of this asset, it's not a "tax" when you own something. It's no more of a "tax" than if you were mining gold (that I own) out of my back yard and I charge you for that gold under a "revenue agreement".

Now, when government starts charging YOU for something they don't own, that is a "TAX"!

The challenge for Alaska is to devise a workable and competitive revenue formula where it becomes a 'win-win' for both Alaska and the private investor/developer of the oil.

[GoodDay]

But this doesn’t make sense to me, because when the resources are gone, what do future Alaskans own? Why do people own the resources just because they happen to live in that State precisely now as a point in time? Who owned the resources before? The Inuit?

All good points. You're completely right from a pure, consistent, free-market perspective. But in the case of Alaska, I believe it's the state constitution which declares that the natural resources belong to "the people." Should Palin have disregarded the constitution of her own state?

[The Bronze Titan]

It’s very simple. The “people of Alaska” decided to do it that way by incorporating that (”we” all State residents own the mineral in the ground) into their State “Constitution”. You can debate the merits of whether that is a ‘wise’ thing or not, but if it’s part of the Constitution, then it is not debatable “policy”. It’s black and white. No arguments, unless you change the State Constitution.

[GoodDay]

Oil companies in Alaska are paying more money in taxes than ever before.

Many people believe that if government imposed a tax on cows, that it would be the cows who paid the tax . . . as opposed to consumers who bought milk, cheese, and beef. In the above case, wouldn't it have been the oil consumers who ultimately paid these taxes, not the oil producers?

[Osage Orange]

So, I’m guessing all I should raise is steers.

[Lorianne]

Agree. I just don’t understand the reasoning behind it.

[Lorianne]

Agree. I just don’t understand the reasoning behind it.

[Will88]

YOU have a problem with that?... WHat re-distribution program would satisfy you?..

Lol, all I did was state the facts. And it got quite a reaction from YOU.

[Lorianne]

Well, no I haven’t addressed Palin in any of this.

If, as I have read here, Palin didn’t institute this policy, it was already a part of the Alaska Constitution, then her involment in the discussion seems to be of no particular importance.

[21twelve]

I’m telling you, there is nothing like getting a check from the state that says, “Here’s your share of the state’s forest/oil/mineral/hydro holdings. Together we can ensure jobs and ecology for generations to come.”

************************************

And having them all linked together makes it likely that proper environmental stewardship of the land and water will be done. Bad logging practices can harm salmon populations. Bad mining practices can hurt timber and salmon, etc. But linked together, everyone in the state has an interest in all of the various industries that reap the harvest from our natural resources.

I’m in Washington State, and it is a disgrace to see closed-off forests, shut-down gravel pits, shut-down mines, etc. All the while shiploads of the stuff we could (and should) be producing is brought in from overseas.