Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
michaeledward
Grandmaster
arnisador said:
How much money does each and every Alaskan citizen get each year for letting the oil companies plunder the North Slope?
I heard the payments went down this year. So somebody needs to do something quick.
If we can't call it welfare, can we call it a bribe?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Blindside said:
Not really ... I just know a check goes out every year. Sounds kinda silly to me.
mrhnau said:wish I got paid to live. I'm good at that
Everything is more expensive up there though... I imagine it kind of offsets. I guess they don't have property tax?
There is definately a property tax (I pay it) but there is no state sales or income tax, which might explain why the state is run on a deficit almost every year.
Lamont
Blindside said:
But they make it up on volume?
It is more expensive there, and they do need enticements to bring people in. (Is the gender ratio still off?) But running a continual deficit is a bad idea. Is that after the payout to the Legislature of earnings from the Permanent Fund, or do you mean that the fund covers what would otherwise be a deficit?
I'm no expert on the Alaska budget problem, but it goes something like this.
Relatively high tax rate on corporations.
The lowest tax burden in the US for residents, property tax rate is about middle-average for US if I recall correctly.
The Alaska Permanent Funds principle is untouchable, you can't use it for anything except as an investment, it is there to provide dividends to Alaska residents. There are some proposals that would alter this structure and give a percentage of the dividend to the State to use as a revenue generator, but this is just a proposal right now.
The states deficient has been covered for the past several years by a huge settlement the state had with various oil companies, but those monies are about to run out. I believe it was the current governor who said they could make up future shortfalls by easing restrictions on energy developement.
Lamont
Relatively high tax rate on corporations.
The lowest tax burden in the US for residents, property tax rate is about middle-average for US if I recall correctly.
The Alaska Permanent Funds principle is untouchable, you can't use it for anything except as an investment, it is there to provide dividends to Alaska residents. There are some proposals that would alter this structure and give a percentage of the dividend to the State to use as a revenue generator, but this is just a proposal right now.
The states deficient has been covered for the past several years by a huge settlement the state had with various oil companies, but those monies are about to run out. I believe it was the current governor who said they could make up future shortfalls by easing restrictions on energy developement.
Lamont
michaeledward
Grandmaster
For those reading this thread, if you are like me, you have no idea what the Alaska permanent fund is, or why it is there. Except, Alaskans get a check for living there.
Of course, this now begs the question, if ANWR is a NATIONAL place, why doesn't the entire population benefit from the 13% commission?
And gee, I suppose back in the early 70's there were a ton of legal proceedings to determine if the state actually owned the minerals located geographically in Alaska. Hmmm.
- The state claimed ownership to the oil (and other minerals) in the public lands of the state.
- The state allows oil companies to extract these minerals (oil).
- The State takes a 13% cut of the minerals (petroleum) extracted from the public lands.
- The oil companies market the State's 13% cut, and deposits the money in the Alaska permanent fund.
Of course, this now begs the question, if ANWR is a NATIONAL place, why doesn't the entire population benefit from the 13% commission?
And gee, I suppose back in the early 70's there were a ton of legal proceedings to determine if the state actually owned the minerals located geographically in Alaska. Hmmm.
I think you are off on your percentage, I think it is 25%, and yes, the state does own the subsurface mineral rights in Alaska.
This becomes a split estate issue which is happening all over the west with one landowner own surface rights and another owning mineral rights.
Lamont
This becomes a split estate issue which is happening all over the west with one landowner own surface rights and another owning mineral rights.
Lamont
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
So, when Senator Stevens is arguing to open up ANWR for mineral right exploration ... He gets 13% of what ever is extracted from there, without doing a thing. Sweet!
Law of supply and demand...if more is taken out then the supply goes up, the price goes down, he doesn't. He gets a dividend on his 13% sold, but it get s sold for less so at some point there is a breakeven point. Of course, if everyone in the state gets a cut, who am I to complain with the fact that he gets a cut too. If I, living here in DC, get cheaper gas and he, living therre in Alaska, gets a take, I don't really care because I got something out of the deal, also.
Of course, this now begs the question, if ANWR is a NATIONAL place, why doesn't the entire population benefit from the 13% commission?
*shrug* ask New Mexico. New Mexico gets a take from the same sorta deal. Only difference is that the money goes to the treasury of the state, not in payouts to individuals, so it does't get talked about a lot. Many states have such natural resources, and I'm sure most of those states have deals with the companies that have the means and motivation to extract those reasons. Otherwise, why aren't you getting a cut off all that Texas oil? Texans I suppose get their cut in not having to pay state icome tax
Or are you going to say that only rich Republicans cane up with this idea and only rich Republicans have benefited?
Law of supply and demand...if more is taken out then the supply goes up, the price goes down, he doesn't. He gets a dividend on his 13% sold, but it get s sold for less so at some point there is a breakeven point. Of course, if everyone in the state gets a cut, who am I to complain with the fact that he gets a cut too. If I, living here in DC, get cheaper gas and he, living therre in Alaska, gets a take, I don't really care because I got something out of the deal, also.
Of course, this now begs the question, if ANWR is a NATIONAL place, why doesn't the entire population benefit from the 13% commission?
*shrug* ask New Mexico. New Mexico gets a take from the same sorta deal. Only difference is that the money goes to the treasury of the state, not in payouts to individuals, so it does't get talked about a lot. Many states have such natural resources, and I'm sure most of those states have deals with the companies that have the means and motivation to extract those reasons. Otherwise, why aren't you getting a cut off all that Texas oil? Texans I suppose get their cut in not having to pay state icome tax
Or are you going to say that only rich Republicans cane up with this idea and only rich Republicans have benefited?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
FearlessFreep said:
You speak as if there are significant enough quantities in Alaska to have an effect on World Market. This belief is false, and has been shown to be false on this board many, many times. Supply changes from ANWR are insignificant.
A state deal for mineral rights is one thing - and I'm not sure I am in favor of it, even if it is sound ... but ANWR is a National Resource, not a state resource. Why should the benefits only go to Alaskans?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Which begs several questions:
- Should the state hold the mineral rights?
- Why?
- Why weren't those rights annexed by the federal government when the land was set aside as a Wildlife Refuge?
- Should they have been?
I don't have any answers to your questions, you'll have to look up the initial designations of the sites, and whatever has come since. A good starting point would be caveats in ANILCA (Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act) which guided the selection and management of federal lands in AK. ANILCA makes federal land management in AK different than anywhere else.
Split estate issues are fairly common in the lower 48 refuges, including at the refuge that I work at, where USFWS (refuges) controls the surface rights and the BLM controls the mineral rights.
Lamont
Split estate issues are fairly common in the lower 48 refuges, including at the refuge that I work at, where USFWS (refuges) controls the surface rights and the BLM controls the mineral rights.
Lamont
michaeledward
Grandmaster
The United States Department of Interior has approved today increased exploratory drilling on the Alaskan North Slope. This is an area adjacent to the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 400,000 acres of land previously off-limits due to possible negative wildlife impact has been opened.
The Department of Interior estimates approximately 2 Billion barrels of oil recoverable in this area, as well as 3.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
If these estimates are accurate, this area would be able to provide just over three months worth of oil for the United States.
The Bureau of Land Management said "We recognize . . . the energy needs of this nation. "So, hopefully, this will alleviate some of the pressure."
100 days worth of oil ... I guess that is 'some' of the pressure.
The Department of Interior estimates approximately 2 Billion barrels of oil recoverable in this area, as well as 3.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
If these estimates are accurate, this area would be able to provide just over three months worth of oil for the United States.
The Bureau of Land Management said "We recognize . . . the energy needs of this nation. "So, hopefully, this will alleviate some of the pressure."
100 days worth of oil ... I guess that is 'some' of the pressure.
