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.

[thackney]

[thackney]

While the Feds holding back access to places like NPRA and the ANWR coastal plain does limit oil access in Alaska, the non-federal land is between the size of New Mexico and Montana. The State alone owns land bigger than either Idaho or Utah.

Alaska has Oil Shale on state land and Great Bear Petroleum wants to develop it. But the current tax structure makes it uneconomical while places like the Bakken, Eagle Ford and the Permian Basin in the lower 48 are drilling like crazy.

[thackney]

"Was booming" is supposed to make your point?

The point was the economy or oil prices were not preventing this from booming. It was the difference between the states.

[thackney]

Very nice. Some day we will get back. My oldest daughter will never be a hunter but my 10 year old is having some interest.

The tax issue is about more than just Sarah Palin. The immense reliance on the oil industry to provide the state funding sets them up for corruption.

Here is an example that started long before Sarah Palin and she did not change it in any way:

Why should the oil/gas industry pay state property tax but no other industry should?

I understand and strongly agree with royalty payments. I understand and agree with corporation income tax. I don't understand singling out a single industry to pay taxes on profits or property.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Spanish company buys interest in North Slope leases

By Tim Bradner
Alaska Journal of Commerce

Repsol, the Spanish oil company, has purchased a major interest in a large block of onshore North Slope state oil and gas leases with plans for a substantial exploration program over the next few years.

“It’s a very positive development” for Alaska, said Jim Winegarner, lands vice president for Brooks Range Petroleum LLC, an Alaska-based independent company exploring acreage near where Repsol has purchased an interest in leases.

Repsol bought a 70 percent interest in a group of onshore leases now held by two Denver-based independents, Armstrong Oil and Gas and GMT Exploration, the company announced in a press release March 7.

Repsol has committed $768 million for exploration over the next several years on approximately 1,300 square miles of leases near large producing fields on the Slope, the company said.

[Berlin_Freeper]

That is your perception. Oil and gas has to travel less from Texas. A lot less.

[thackney]

We import oil from a lot farther away from the US than Alaska. That distance isn’t keeping anyone from investing.

The distance hasn’t changed from before ACES went into effect.

[thackney]

Alaska Governor Parnell’s Plan Has Brought Apache and Repsol to Alaska; World Energy Thinks Many Others Will Soon Follow?
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110511007256/en/Alaska-Governor-Parnell%E2%80%99s-Plan-Brought-Apache-Repsol

...Governor Parnell has worked very hard with the State Legislature to pass significant tax rebates and incentives to increase production in the state and is working with Senator Stevens and others to lower north slope production taxes and make Alaska our nation’s number 1 producer, yet again.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Why is it cheaper to buy footballs (or whatever) from China than to have them made in the USA?

US imports many things from far-off because of cheaper markets.

We are talking here about *domestic product*.

With the economic crisis in America the market gets smaller and more competitive. Yet because of ACES the State tax income floats up and down with the income of Big Oil. That allows for investment like I showed you in post 185, in the coming years. Otherwise you would have real big trouble.

But your problem is you think you can ignore the current economic crisis as meaningless. It is a bit remarkable because the only others wanting to do that are Democrats. Keep up your MSM misinformation campaign and you will help Obama succeed to a second term - and then you think that continued bad economy is NOT going to effect the oil industry too?

Good Luck.

[Berlin_Freeper]

If that is true then why you bitching about ACES?

ACES is meaningless then. That sure doesn’t add up.

Politicians are experts at taking credit and your MSM are experts at attacking Palin.

[Calif Conservative]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_AK_state

Really?

Gov. Palin admin ran from 12-2006 through 7-2009

State govt. spending in the relevant years:

Fiscal 2006 (12 months that ended on 6-30-06) — which was prior to Gov. Palin admin., but here for comparison purposes.
$7.4 billion

Fiscal 2007 (12 months that ended on 6-30-07)
$7.6 billion

Fiscal 2008 (12 months that ended on 6-30-08)
$8.6 billion

Fiscal 2009 (12 months that ended on 6-30-09)
$8.9 billion

That looks like
+6.8 % from 2006 to 2007
+8.9 % from 2007 to 2008
+3.5 % from 2008 to 2009

Tell me where spending was cut? Since it rose each year, and looks like it rose faster than the inflation rate.

-George

[Calif Conservative]

In which state do you chair the Palin campaign?

[Calif Conservative]

So may I presume no one disputes that Gov. Palin raised taxes from 22.5 percent to 25 percent on a major American industry based in Alaska?

[Al B.]

Really?

Yeah, REALLY.

My numbers come from the State of Alaska Office of Management & Budget archives. You're quoting Barack Obama's numbers, some that they even admit are "guestimated".

You people crack me up.

[Calif Conservative]

let’s take a look at Al’s original “evidence.” please note the key word in his claimed “correct” information.

Al:
*****
Monday, August 22, 2011 9:12:10 AM · 27 of 194
Al B. to Calif Conservative

5.5% real reduction in Yr. 1, 9.5% by the 3rd budget (her budget).
*****

Did you catch the key word in Al’s obfuscation? “real.”

Why is that one of multiple red flags in his post?

1. no link to document his claim
2. no actual numbers. I posted actual numbers and their progression.
3. he uses percent changes without the raw numbers to back them up
4. the use of the word “real”

Real — in that context — to me means, adjusted for some factor. It could be inflation. It could be something else.

why did you use “real” Al? why didn’t you post the actual numbers, Al? How do we know that your percent changes are correct, Al? Where is the link to the evidence, Al?

“You people”, as Al puts it, can surely do better than Al. Wouldn’t you agree, Al ?

-George

[Al B.]

Don't get yourself all twisted up in knots, Ace. What I meant was "real reduction", not some phony reduction in the rate of growth that you RINOs like to quote. My apologies for misplacing the word "real" in the sentence.

Alaska Dept. of Finance, Office of Management & Budget. Have fun and be sure and bring your green eyeshades. We're talking capital + operating (enacted), not all the other extraneous formulaic PF crap. I'll even give you a hint. The FY2007 (Murkowski) actuals are in the 2008 fiscal summary far-left column, etc. etc.

Have fun and do some work. You'll get educated. Til then, feel free to post all the actual numbers from Barack Obama you want. I'll give them their proper due.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

All the admitted oil men on this are just ticked off that Sarah yanked their trough away and exposed the corruption in Alaska. Hence all the faux hueing and crying going on in this thread and others.

[Calif Conservative]

Thanks for all your concern, Al, but the only thing that’s twisted is your logic.

I did all the research, Al. You have yet to explain away the increase in spending during the brief gubernatorial years of Sarah Palin.

I posted the actual numbers. Why don’t you, Al ?

-George

[Al B.]

I did all the research, Al. You have yet to explain away the increase in spending during the brief gubernatorial years of Sarah Palin.

You not only lie about Palin's fiscal record in Alaska, you're just lazy. I gave you the link to Alaska's budget archives and you researched nothing.

State of Alaska -- last budgets of Knowles, Murkowski, Palin
(enacted less vetoes - includes operating+capital+Permanent Fund contributions)

FY2003 -- Knowles (D)     $7.39 billion

FY2007 -- Murkowski (Big 'R')     $11.7 billion     +58%

FY2010 -- Palin (R)     $10.57 billion    -9.5%

The 9.5% spending reduction number has been out there for many months. Jedediah Bila quoted the exact same number yesterday in the Daily Caller:

"Palin reduced spending by 9.5% from 2007 to 2010 and slashed earmark requests by over 80% during her time as governor."

Every word in that statement is true as well as her other statements about Palin's record. No responsible journalist asserts Palin increased spending in Alaska. Why do you? Are you just a drone?

[Al B.]

Ping to #199.