Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 513

Thread: More bad news for Alaska's future..

  1. #381
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chez View Post
    As I've said before, Alaska doesn't have an income problem, we have a spending problem due to life long establishment politicians
    You couldn't be more right.
    Too much spending and too many state employees.
    What really gets me is when one of these state employees tells you because their a tier 2 employee they are not worried about losing their job.
    Hello every person in the oil and gas industry is subject to layoffs from the top on down! But certain state employees are not able to be laid off or will be the last to go because of the tier system?
    That's just BS in my book. If your position needs to be cut then sorry your gone simple as that. At least that's how it should go IMHO.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  2. #382
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,059

    Default and a few court cases..

    Politicians and some court cases like the Molly Hootch case back in 1976. Then we have things like the 19 or so campuses of the U of Alaska. And the Feds don't help either, taxing everyone so some can have highly subsidized high speed internet and phone service etc. in the middle of nowhere. And then we have things like the AK power cost equalization endowment fund that many aren't even aware of: http://treasury.dor.alaska.gov/Inves...tion-Fund.aspx

    Urban dwellers will get hit hard when the state budget is finally and inevitably drastically slashed. The rural areas are going to be totally squashed. It is only a matter of time; any new resource development is going to be way too late and probably couldn't contribute enough in taxes anyway.

    It is going to be most interesting - and painful.



    Quote Originally Posted by Chez View Post
    As I've said before, Alaska doesn't have an income problem, we have a spending problem due to life long establishment politicians
    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

  3. #383
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chez View Post
    As I've said before, Alaska doesn't have an income problem, we have a spending problem due to life long establishment politicians
    ^^^^^ This.....and ^^^^^ this again. The state spends money (even now) like it's going out of style.
    Back in AK

  4. #384
    Member Mkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    anchorage
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Politicians and some court cases like the Molly Hootch case back in 1976. Then we have things like the 19 or so campuses of the U of Alaska. And the Feds don't help either, taxing everyone so some can have highly subsidized high speed internet and phone service etc. in the middle of nowhere. And then we have things like the AK power cost equalization endowment fund that many aren't even aware of: http://treasury.dor.alaska.gov/Inves...tion-Fund.aspx

    Urban dwellers will get hit hard when the state budget is finally and inevitably drastically slashed. The rural areas are going to be totally squashed. It is only a matter of time; any new resource development is going to be way too late and probably couldn't contribute enough in taxes anyway.

    It is going to be most interesting - and painful.
    Looks like $900 million sitting in funds whose revenues are used solely to provide cheap electricity/fuel to rural areas that would be unable to afford their own electric bills. Can us gringos in Los Anchorage get in on that deal? Don't bother to answer.
    The 800 hundred pound gorilla in the garage is the upcoming battle between urban/rural Alaska, that we are not supposed to talk about. You can bet that us suckers who have to wake up and slog off to work every day are going to be taxed to transfer funds to the plebes that don't. And if we object?
    My child was inmate of the month at Mat-Su pre-trial Correctional facility.

  5. #385
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,276

    Default

    What really irks me about all the tax talk coming from our representatives, is they continually state they cannot cut their way out of the budget shortage, that they have to raise more money by taxing us. Well, when they do that, we have to make cuts to our personal budgets. In my case, the pfd grab, tire tax, income tax and gasoline tax will take 15% or more of my income. Meaning that I have to make more cuts to my personal budget, which is already very, very tight. If there was nothing left to cut at the state level, fine. I will find ways to survive. But when they claim they must have 7,000 dollars a month on top of their income just to live, and claim they need $20,000 to refurnish their new office when they move in, and have enough money to lease buildings and employ people in Texas and Japan with state money, I get flat out ticked. When they refuse to freeze salaries, but continue to give annual cost of living raises, and claim cutting any of this is just a drop in the bucket, it don't fly. Maybe those expenses don't begin to touch a 3 billion dollar deficit, but they cover a heck of a lot more than the 15% of my income they are so earnestly striving for!

  6. #386
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Make sure you are all contacting all of the representatives and senators in the legislature, either by phone, email, or in person and tell them what you've said here. The often repeated "you can't cut your way to prosperity" needs to be countered with something along the lines of we all know we can't cut our way to prosperity, but we need to cut to sustainable levels. About two months ago the governors budget director was celebrating a proposed budget at reduced rates, reduced to 2011 levels, the year oil was at historic highs and the state was flush with cash that isn't sustainable. Until and unless oil flows at 2 million barrels a day and sells for over $100 a barrel the state cannot afford it's current spending levels.
    "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle." - G.I. Joe

  7. #387
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,059

    Default resource development and cuts..

    It is indeed vitally important that we contact our representatives and senators in the legislature not only on drastically cutting spending to a fraction of what it is now, but also on promoting the resource development that is essential to the state's long term success as place to live and work for many Americans - not just Native Americans and rural residents.

    Drastic cuts in the budget will obviously hit the rural residents much harder than the urban residents since the rural folk are so dependent on subsidized services for their everyday essentials - food, utilities, transportation, communications, health care, housing, education etc. Only when the rural residents really feel the crunch will we see the changes needed to develop Alaska's natural resources.

    Of course we don't want to go too far in any direction in developing our resources - development must be responsible and have allowable impact on the majority of people. The North Slope oil fields have clearly show we can have responsible resource development that benefit all of us Alaskans.


    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan54 View Post
    Make sure you are all contacting all of the representatives and senators in the legislature, either by phone, email, or in person and tell them what you've said here. The often repeated "you can't cut your way to prosperity" needs to be countered with something along the lines of we all know we can't cut our way to prosperity, but we need to cut to sustainable levels. About two months ago the governors budget director was celebrating a proposed budget at reduced rates, reduced to 2011 levels, the year oil was at historic highs and the state was flush with cash that isn't sustainable. Until and unless oil flows at 2 million barrels a day and sells for over $100 a barrel the state cannot afford it's current spending levels.
    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

  8. #388
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,059

    Default finally some good news...

    https://www.adn.com/business-economy...-a-lot-bigger/

    This will help, with production as soon as 2021 according to the articles. But watch the Natives try to block everything as they bite the very hand that feeds them.
    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

  9. #389
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    https://www.adn.com/business-economy...-a-lot-bigger/

    This will help, with production as soon as 2021 according to the articles. But watch the Natives try to block everything as they bite the very hand that feeds them.
    Thoughts:

    - Unfortunately, lots of barriers to permitting: not insurmountable but much higher than other regions in the onshore/offshore U.S.
    - As part of these barriers, there are quite a few more "stakeholders" or wanna-be stakeholders to get development or transit permits on AKNS than in other areas;
    - Alaska is stiill the leading (lagging, depending how one observes) area for high development costs
    - Look for a p***ing contest amongst the "operators" of this lease: Unitization, cost allocation, production allocation, and all related cost/revenue splits to be argued about, even if theoretically spelled out in leases / JOA's
    - All the current players will be looking for a moneyed partner to come in to fund the development;
    - Changes in tax law will not help. The financiers don't like change...they like changes that add costs even less
    - D&M historically (as can be argued is their job as 3d party auditors) tend to minimize the upside (whether contingent, found, reserve barrels or potential production rates) and to maximize the "negatives" (cost of development, cost of production, tariffs, etc) when evaluating a prospect;
    - A minimum of 4 years before production (2021) seems: a) optimistic timing; b) unlikely to achieve "1st oil" with anywhere close to a majority of the barrels in this discovery; and c) a darn long time for revenue given the strength of the players and the cost of development.

    These recent finds and increased estimates are much better than the proverbial poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but they aren't going to address the near term crisis that Alaska is facing.
    Back in AK

  10. #390
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,059

    Default too late for sure...

    You are certainly right about the delays and the timing. The Native groups are sure to throw a fit so they can try to get more money regardless of what else happens. The whole sate can be held hostage "because it MAY impact someone's hunting fishing traditions" - what a pathetic joke.

    But even if everything sailed straight through - the budget crisis is still gonna hit and hurt big time. And even with with a 50% increase in oil production we are still going to come up far short.

    Anything else we can develop and tax in a hurry? Most likely not - hard times are a coming for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by pa12drvr View Post
    Thoughts:

    - Unfortunately, lots of barriers to permitting: not insurmountable but much higher than other regions in the onshore/offshore U.S.
    - As part of these barriers, there are quite a few more "stakeholders" or wanna-be stakeholders to get development or transit permits on AKNS than in other areas;
    - Alaska is stiill the leading (lagging, depending how one observes) area for high development costs
    - Look for a p***ing contest amongst the "operators" of this lease: Unitization, cost allocation, production allocation, and all related cost/revenue splits to be argued about, even if theoretically spelled out in leases / JOA's
    - All the current players will be looking for a moneyed partner to come in to fund the development;
    - Changes in tax law will not help. The financiers don't like change...they like changes that add costs even less
    - D&M historically (as can be argued is their job as 3d party auditors) tend to minimize the upside (whether contingent, found, reserve barrels or potential production rates) and to maximize the "negatives" (cost of development, cost of production, tariffs, etc) when evaluating a prospect;
    - A minimum of 4 years before production (2021) seems: a) optimistic timing; b) unlikely to achieve "1st oil" with anywhere close to a majority of the barrels in this discovery; and c) a darn long time for revenue given the strength of the players and the cost of development.

    These recent finds and increased estimates are much better than the proverbial poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but they aren't going to address the near term crisis that Alaska is facing.
    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. #391
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,059

    Default counting the chickens...

    Reminds me of the old saying: "Don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch".

    https://www.adn.com/business-economy...ential-riches/


    Quote Originally Posted by pa12drvr View Post
    Thoughts:

    - Unfortunately, lots of barriers to permitting: not insurmountable but much higher than other regions in the onshore/offshore U.S.
    - As part of these barriers, there are quite a few more "stakeholders" or wanna-be stakeholders to get development or transit permits on AKNS than in other areas;
    - Alaska is stiill the leading (lagging, depending how one observes) area for high development costs
    - Look for a p***ing contest amongst the "operators" of this lease: Unitization, cost allocation, production allocation, and all related cost/revenue splits to be argued about, even if theoretically spelled out in leases / JOA's
    - All the current players will be looking for a moneyed partner to come in to fund the development;
    - Changes in tax law will not help. The financiers don't like change...they like changes that add costs even less
    - D&M historically (as can be argued is their job as 3d party auditors) tend to minimize the upside (whether contingent, found, reserve barrels or potential production rates) and to maximize the "negatives" (cost of development, cost of production, tariffs, etc) when evaluating a prospect;
    - A minimum of 4 years before production (2021) seems: a) optimistic timing; b) unlikely to achieve "1st oil" with anywhere close to a majority of the barrels in this discovery; and c) a darn long time for revenue given the strength of the players and the cost of development.

    These recent finds and increased estimates are much better than the proverbial poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but they aren't going to address the near term crisis that Alaska is facing.
    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

  12. #392
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,059

    Default Hitting home..

    Since I am an engineer, this caught my attention: https://www.adn.com/business-economy...kas-recession/

    With less engineers, there is obviously less work being done on developing Alaska's natural resources and infrastructural, and that is certainly bad news for all of us.
    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

  13. #393

    Default

    OIL (New Wells) Profitable at $20.00 a BARREL.

    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil...-A-Barrel.html

  14. #394
    Member Mkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    anchorage
    Posts
    726

    Default

    If you can make a profit in Texas at $20 a barrel then that's where I would invest my money. Stay as far away from any new investments in Alaska. The majority caucus in Juneau is getting ready to hang out the "Closed for Business" sign on our state with a re-visit of oil taxes again. A fellow with a few moving vans for rent ought to make a nice profit in a year or two.
    My child was inmate of the month at Mat-Su pre-trial Correctional facility.

  15. #395
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkay View Post
    If you can make a profit in Texas at $20 a barrel then that's where I would invest my money. Stay as far away from any new investments in Alaska. The majority caucus in Juneau is getting ready to hang out the "Closed for Business" sign on our state with a re-visit of oil taxes again. A fellow with a few moving vans for rent ought to make a nice profit in a year or two.
    ^^^^ This is spot on. Some things to consider:

    - I note that the article quoted a consultant who partially quoted Shell. This paradigm needs to be taken with a teaspoon of salt, to say the least.....even if it turns out to be entirely
    - While it varies quite a bit, Jim Bob's Trucking and his cousin's business CHarlie's Out Under Esteemed Ship Transport for the "onshore" offshore can provide tanker trucks and small carriers for transporting shale-generated oil....along with every third trucking and boat company in Texas and Louisiana
    - Need a new gathering line, flowline, or pipeline, in the shale? Actually one might not be needed because Jim Bob just bought a bunch of new trucks, but if one is needed, there's dozens of "Texas Pipeliner" rigs running around that can build a surface or shallow-buried pipeline in weeks, or months, not years.
    - Regardless (irregardless?) of the tax impact, it is orders of magnitude more costly to find, operate, transport, store, and market Alaska crude than most places;
    - Add in a varying (IMNSHO the "variance" is almost of more concern that the amount) tax regime, and Alaska crude becomes less attractive.
    - The majors moving into Shale, and many of the independents already there or looking to tag along,is most decidely not a good thing for Alaska's oil patch...and whether one likes it or not, not a good thing for Alaska's finances.
    - The current operators will continue to operate in Alaska until the wheels fall off. The new explorers will continue to explore until the combination of tax credits and "existing infrastructure" is no longer present or viable.
    - Regardless of one's political views, having sufficient funding to have a viable DNR and ADF&G is fairly critical to enjoying a hunting/fishing set of activities. Hard to see a long-term source for that sufficient funding when Alaska doesn't attract the investment to generate new/replacement production.

    Opinion
    Back in AK

  16. #396
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    289

    Default

    I note that the article quoted a consultant who partially quoted Shell. This paradigm needs to be taken with a teaspoon of salt, to say the least.....even if it turns out to be entirely correct.
    Back in AK

  17. #397
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,059

    Default cost to market also..

    In addition to the low production cost, the oil is produced close to existing pipelines that can transport the crude a few hundred miles to the refineries and existing terminals.

    The oil companies will continue to have a presence in Alaska as they know it is always prudent to hedge your bets, but the real money isn't going to be spent here anytime soon.

    I also read that the whole situation in public education is changing also; the past virtually unlimited money spend on very high cost students including special needs, natives, immigrants etc. is disappearing. That is going to hammer rural Alaska really hard.

    I'm certainly glad I sold my house in Anchorage and moved to a much cheaper place on the Kenai peninsula, and that I don't have to work any longer to support myself. For those with house payments and families to support - good luck!


    Quote Originally Posted by Mkay View Post
    If you can make a profit in Texas at $20 a barrel then that's where I would invest my money. Stay as far away from any new investments in Alaska. The majority caucus in Juneau is getting ready to hang out the "Closed for Business" sign on our state with a re-visit of oil taxes again. A fellow with a few moving vans for rent ought to make a nice profit in a year or two.
    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

  18. #398
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,059

    Default here it comes... or goes

    https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/avia...be-going-away/

    As the article states, eliminating subsidized air traffic may be the death blow to many rural communities. Most important, the article indirectly shows that the rural communities are not "subsistence" lifestyle at all, but rather dependent on the urban subsidizes or a "subsidized" life style.

    Unless there is some sort of resource development to come to the aid in these communities, their death appears certain. Federal budget cuts and the coming cuts in the state budget will do them in.
    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

  19. #399

    Default

    Anchorage was born 1915.......for thousands of years prior rural villages existed. At the "CORE" basic survival level.....Urban Alaska towns and cities are far more dependent on "Subsidizes".

    The entire economic system is a fraud, con, illusion, a pathetic (poorly constructed) ponzi scheme. And when that illusion dies, Urban Alaska will suffer a much higher mortality rate than rural Alaska towns and villages.


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/avia...be-going-away/

    As the article states, eliminating subsidized air traffic may be the death blow to many rural communities. Most important, the article indirectly shows that the rural communities are not "subsistence" lifestyle at all, but rather dependent on the urban subsidizes or a "subsidized" life style.

    Unless there is some sort of resource development to come to the aid in these communities, their death appears certain. Federal budget cuts and the coming cuts in the state budget will do them in.

  20. #400
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,059

    Default whenever...

    When and IF civilizations end we are all screwed. But predictions have been around since the beginning of civilizations and most of us are still here.

    All of Alaska is subsidized to some extend- but the majority of money per capita by far goes to the rural communities - the article is an excellent example. Anchorage and Fairbanks would be hurt if the military closed down but they would continue to exist. There would be fewer people and real estate values would collapse, but with jobs and a tax base Anchorage would survive.

    As the subsidizes disappear, perhaps the rural villages will finally wake up and acknowledge that the old days that never were are long gone. The rural people are going to have to embrace responsible resource development or simply cease to exist. The urban folks are simply getting tired of paying for the lifestyles of others. Sooner or later was bound to happen - and later is now.



    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    Anchorage was born 1915.......for thousands of years prior rural villages existed. At the "CORE" basic survival level.....Urban Alaska towns and cities are far more dependent on "Subsidizes".

    The entire economic system is a fraud, con, illusion, a pathetic (poorly constructed) ponzi scheme. And when that illusion dies, Urban Alaska will suffer a much higher mortality rate than rural Alaska towns and villages.
    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

Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

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
  •