Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Revenue from oil produced on offshore federal lands

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Revenue from oil produced on offshore federal lands

    Ran across this article: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/01/23/l...-sharing-plan/

    Looks like our gal Lisa has her hand out to get more money from the feds for oil produced on federal offshore leases.

    Now if we could only get her to to press for money from the commerical fisheries operating in our offshore waters and return little revenue to the state while costing us revenue with their by-catching of king salmon etc.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Delta Jct, Alaska
    Posts
    992

    Default

    Ditto with the large foreign mining firms leaving with Alaska's minerals ala Pogo Mine.

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question

    . . . . . . . . .

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default taxes on resource removal..

    I don't know if the Pogo mine is on state, private, or federal land but the taxes paid by the mining interests to the state are not much. I've asked many times how much of a tax revenue stream the Pebble Mine would produce, but no one wants to answer that question. My guess is, like other mining, tourism, lumber, and commercial fishing it would be very small in comparison with the taxes paid by the oil companies. In 2011 oil paid 73% of the state's revenues, while other including mining, tourism, lumber, commercial fish TOGETHER paid around 7% TOTAL.

    Current tax revenue information is at: http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/d...wer.aspx?2682f Good unbiased factual reading; it will inform you who pays and who doesn't pay much taxes to the state.


    Quote Originally Posted by VernAK View Post
    Ditto with the large foreign mining firms leaving with Alaska's minerals ala Pogo Mine.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Unhappy

    Attachment 67538
    ......................

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default even worse...

    Found this statment in the front of the revenue book ( I had not been through this edition before). It pretty much puts the taxes revenues from mining and other businesses in perspective:

    "Oil revenue continues to dominate the state’s revenue. In FY 2012, approximately 93% of all Unrestricted Revenue can be attributed to oil revenue and this high level of dependence will likely continue." http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/d...wer.aspx?2682f

    When you remove the investment income, all the taxes paid by mining, tourism, commercial fishing, lumber, etc. IN TOTAL amount to less that 7% of all Unrestricted Alaska Revenue. The unrestricted revenues are the source for many of the states essential services provided to ALL Alaskans regardless of where they live.

    Actually mining pays about 30% more than the fisheries business, however, insurance premiums and motor fuel tax revenues are larger than mining payments. See pages 6 & 7 of the referenced report.



    Quote Originally Posted by VernAK View Post
    Ditto with the large foreign mining firms leaving with Alaska's minerals ala Pogo Mine.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Attachment 67541
    ...................

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Interior Alaska
    Posts
    893

    Default

    Perhaps a bit odd that Lisa is now seeking to increase Alaska's take for off-shore oil; she was initially one who helped the Oil Producers to pay less here than they do in some other states.


    In Alaska, the revenue sharing for off-shore wells ranges from the 3-mile to 6-mile buffer, and beyond 6-miles, we receive NADA, ZIP, ZILCH.


    Comparatively, some of the other states receive revenue sharing out to the more customary 200-mile limit..


    Must be an election year coming up or something... And someone perhaps recently made a comment on the airwaves about those who claim to represent Alaska's interests, who have instead, in reality, helped to give stuff away to various fairly powerful lobbyist groups and their employers.. ;^>)


    By the way, this means that when Shell (or whom ever) runs into a catastrophic spill (for one cause or another) in 6-foot-thick broken sea ice, and they are unable to contain the spill ('cause that's what I'll -guarantee- you will happen), Alaskans will be taking what ever 'hit' we take for merely receiving a portion of the clean-up costs and damages, because anything outside of 6-miles is nothing but a factoid for us.. We gain nothing from it.... except for a -small- percentage of the jobs.


    And credible sources say that none of that oil (from off-shore) is headed for TAPS. To justify a line to TAPS, they would have to have a HUGE source, and thus far, that's not likely to occur where they're looking.


    Edit: By the way, from some of the discussions I've had with persons re. this specific area of information, the Producers can legally drill at an angle from outside the 6-mile line, tapping oil closer to the coast, and pay Alaska nothing for that oil.

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink

    Good luck, ruffle, exploring the oil production aspects of this issue . . we'll see how long it takes now to get back to smearing our commercial fisheries with the same brush.


    I suspect that the back-door purpose of this thread is to dump a pile of crap somewhere in the area of Resource Management and then use that pile of crap to smear Alaska's commercial fisheries.


    Could be wrong, though . . time will tell . .


    Wait for it . .

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default zip..

    Since out all our current oil production is relatively close to shore at the moment, I don't believe that we currently aren't loosing anything. Producers in the Gulf of Mexico are much further offshore and in deeper water and they have been producing for many years.

    Shell isn't spending all that money looking for a small field. I just heard this week that hey are currently setting up to study a route across NPR-A to build a pipeline to connect up to TAPS. Not sure your sources are, but trying to get the oil out any other way hardly makes sense.

    Likewise, drilling just outside the 6 mile limit and directional drilling into reservoirs inside the 6 mile limit is far out. For that to happen the reservoir would have to straddle to 6 mile limit and even then the taxes would be prorated on the formation and allocation.

    Having worked for a number of oil companies including Shell, Exxon, SOHIO (BP) and ARAMCO (I haven't worked for an oil company since 91), I'd place Shell at the top of my choice to produce oil anywhere. They are a class act and should be a welcome addition to Alaska. I wish them well.

    For oil produced outside the six mile limit and brought onshore I'd propose a tax similar to that on the fish caught outside the limit and brought onshore should be fair. For oil produced offshore and then shipped out without going onshore of course no taxes would be paid- again like the fish caught off-shore and never brought into state. Sound fair enough?

    Quote Originally Posted by ruffle View Post
    Perhaps a bit odd that Lisa is now seeking to increase Alaska's take for off-shore oil; she was initially one who helped the Oil Producers to pay less here than they do in some other states.


    In Alaska, the revenue sharing for off-shore wells ranges from the 3-mile to 6-mile buffer, and beyond 6-miles, we receive NADA, ZIP, ZILCH.


    Comparatively, some of the other states receive revenue sharing out to the more customary 200-mile limit..


    Must be an election year coming up or something... And someone perhaps recently made a comment on the airwaves about those who claim to represent Alaska's interests, who have instead, in reality, helped to give stuff away to various fairly powerful lobbyist groups and their employers.. ;^>)


    By the way, this means that when Shell (or whom ever) runs into a catastrophic spill (for one cause or another) in 6-foot-thick broken sea ice, and they are unable to contain the spill ('cause that's what I'll -guarantee- you will happen), Alaskans will be taking what ever 'hit' we take for merely receiving a portion of the clean-up costs and damages, because anything outside of 6-miles is nothing but a factoid for us.. We gain nothing from it.... except for a -small- percentage of the jobs.


    And credible sources say that none of that oil (from off-shore) is headed for TAPS. To justify a line to TAPS, they would have to have a HUGE source, and thus far, that's not likely to occur where they're looking.


    Edit: By the way, from some of the discussions I've had with persons re. this specific area of information, the Producers can legally drill at an angle from outside the 6-mile line, tapping oil closer to the coast, and pay Alaska nothing for that oil.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Interior Alaska
    Posts
    893

    Default

    The larger Producers are making more profit per barrel in Alaska than nearly any place else they drill over-seas or in the North American Continent; averaging $26-$28/bbl over the last several years. They don't need another NPR-A or Prudhoe Bay to make gobs of money here. They -do- need such a 'bank' to justify a sea-to-land pipeline to tie into TAPS, however.


    They haven't been honest about their comparative oil revenues in Alaska (vs. the remainder of North America or the International markets), their maintenance, or much else. (Yes, I'm speaking in fairly broad generalizations, but AOGA has been their collective mouth-piece, and I can factually point to a number of instances wherein AOGA has misled the public, as well as attempting to mislead the legislature.. )


    But it was the Commisioner of Natural Resources for the State of Alaska who was recently on NPRA (the Alaska Public Radio program with Steve Heimmel, as opposed to the 1940's reserve of oil for the Navy, etc., estimated to be about 13-14 Billion recoverable barrels of oil about a decade ago), and he addressed the issue of through-put in TAPS from off-shore wells, then later passively acknowledged that a 'find' that might merit such incredible infrastructure was not really yet a matter of fact..


    Whether Shell, BP (now banned from federal contracts the last I read), or Conoco (who receives a steadier more dependable, and ultimately larger return on every dollar spent in Alaska than they do in nearly any place else they operate), I'm not aware of a single one of them that possesses the ability to effectively contain a spill of -any- size in broken sea ice, let alone with the storms that occur in that many miles of coast line.


    Heck, their skimmers wouldn't work in Prince William Sound in 1989, immediately after the spill (which they acknowledged unintentionally on reel-to-reel tape when their communications system went into automated mode during that crisis), and that was with relatively calm weather, yet they put the skimmers out in view of the press specifically because the press was present and shooting film.


    Additionally, I'll assert that directional drilling isn't all that far out at all. The fact that it has a name to reference it by means that someone has plotted or planned for its eventuality.



    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Since out all our current oil production is relatively close to shore at the moment, I don't believe that we currently aren't loosing anything. Producers in the Gulf of Mexico are much further offshore and in deeper water and they have been producing for many years.

    Shell isn't spending all that money looking for a small field. I just heard this week that hey are currently setting up to study a route across NPR-A to build a pipeline to connect up to TAPS. Not sure your sources are, but trying to get the oil out any other way hardly makes sense.

    Likewise, drilling just outside the 6 mile limit and directional drilling into reservoirs inside the 6 mile limit is far out. For that to happen the reservoir would have to straddle to 6 mile limit and even then the taxes would be prorated on the formation and allocation.

    Having worked for a number of oil companies including Shell, Exxon, SOHIO (BP) and ARAMCO (I haven't worked for an oil company since 91), I'd place Shell at the top of my choice to produce oil anywhere. They are a class act and should be a welcome addition to Alaska. I wish them well.

    For oil produced outside the six mile limit and brought onshore I'd propose a tax similar to that on the fish caught outside the limit and brought onshore should be fair. For oil produced offshore and then shipped out without going onshore of course no taxes would be paid- again like the fish caught off-shore and never brought into state. Sound fair enough?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •