Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on October 5, 2012 at 9:03am

Craig,

 I understand they've hired "Odd Job" and "Jaws" as helicopter pilots.

BluFlame

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on October 4, 2012 at 2:22am

Fang,  

   Much attention has been given to the tax advantage the O&G's receive via the 15% "depletion allowance".  The mechanics are pretty simple; only 85% of well revenue  is taxable, in theory partially offsetting the inherent risk in drilling oil wells. Well expenses are also deductible. The depletion allowance has been around a long time, and was established when there were only vertical wells, and the O&G's suffered many "dry holes". In todays shale world of horizontal drilling and seismic testing, the dry hole risk is greatly reduced, albeit at much higher drilling costs. 

  Overlooked in all this (nowhere have I seen it mentioned) is the fact the depletion allowance benefit also inures to royalty owners such as us. And as you note, many if not most of those royalty beneficiaries are middle class, or in Mr. Romney's world, "47%ers".  

    I believe the depletion allowance, yes or no, is the main bone of contention in the debate. I do not believe either candidate would advocate "shutting down development" and thereby inhibiting energy independence. That would be political suicide. BTW, I believe Mr. Romney is the better choice, and I thought he helped himself significantly in last night's debate.

BluFlame

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on October 4, 2012 at 1:46am

Dave,

If this debate did not show the American people and the world that Obama has been protected from answering the economic affairs of the country, I give up.  It was so onesided how Romney as with us businessmen can quickly disarm and conclude who at the table has no business intellect in a second.  It reminds me of many negotiations my company has been a part of whereas you immediately see who is adept and who is enept.  Sadly as in business many times the inept get rolled over and sometimes gets taken advantage of.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Pavlik on October 5, 2012 at 12:57am

Ron

In the case of the inept getting run over by the adept, I think the reverse has happened with the President in office.......who I consider inept and that he actually took advantage of the adept during his rein by getting his "my way or the highway" mentality through when it came to Obamacare being ramroded down the throats of the American public. I hope he is taken advantaged of in the very near future : )

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on October 5, 2012 at 1:11am

Alan , my sentiments exactly.  in the past few decades in the democratic stronghold of Youngstown, I personally have been taken advantage of by the inept leadership from being arrested for harvesting MY timber on MY land to being arrested for growing shrimp on MY land. 

What people in suburbia and rural areas have not seen yet is when brains drain from urban centers, the void is filled by the inept and uneducated.............this is where justice is replaced with dependency whether fair or not. This land is your land, this land is  now mind too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on October 5, 2012 at 1:00pm

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/05/obama-administration-to-withd...

Obama admin to withdraw millions of Alaska acres from development

U.S. Rep. Don Young, left, (R-Alaska) speaks as Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) looks on at a U.S. House Natural Resources Committee oversight hearing.

By: Audrey Hudson
10/5/2012 05:15 AM

The Obama administration’s plan to lock up nearly half of the National Petroleum Reserve from energy production has drawn criticism from key Alaska officials and Iñupiat Eskimos who say the plan is unacceptable and should be canceled.

The 23 million acre reserve on Alaska’s north slope was set aside by Congress 90 years ago to preserve the domestic supply of oil and gas, and critics say the proposal shelves the most prosperous lands.

“At a minimum, the administration’s proposed management plan would add uncertainty and delay development projects at a time when the U.S. badly needs both the energy and the jobs,” said Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska). “It begs the question, if we can’t develop (the reserve), where will this administration let us develop? Their proposed management plan is unacceptable to me and as long as I’m in Washington D.C., these recommendations will never see the light of day.”

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell, a Republican, officially withdrew the state from further cooperation with the Interior Department unless the plan is canceled.

The “surprise announcement” and “complete failure” of the federal government to consider numerous concerns expressed by the state “shows a complete lack of respect for the views of the state,” Parnell said in a Sept. 12 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

The Aug. 13 announcement, made with little fanfare after Congress left town for the summer recess, restricts leases for energy development to less than 12 million acres that the government estimates holds 549 million barrels of oil. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated in 2002 there were 9 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the reserve, but revised their estimate in 2010 to less than 900 million barrels.

By limiting energy production, the plan would protect “world-class caribou herds, migratory bird habitat, uplands, and sensitive coastal resources that are central to the culture and subsistence lifestyle of Alaska natives and our nation’s conservation heritage,” the announcement said.

Local support disputed

However, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) that represents the interests of the Iñupiat in Barrow, Alaska, is opposed to the plan and disputes Salazar’s contention it has local support.

Richard Glenn, ASRC executive vice president of lands and natural resources, says “despite the department’s statements of working and collaborating with Alaska Native groups we feel that our efforts are rejected.”

“Salazar’s choice would lock up large swaths of land with little or no additional benefit to wildlife resources found there and elsewhere throughout the petroleum reserve. Waterfowl, fish and caribou do not recognize boxes on a map,” Glenn said.

Rex A. Rock, Sr., ARSC president, said the plan essentially locks up the most prospective areas for increased domestic energy supply, while proposing lease sales on tracts of land with low oil potential.

“This is supposed to be used for energy production, they shouldn’t be treating it as a wilderness area,” said Dan Kish, senior vice president of policy for the Institute of Energy Research.

Obama has effectively blocked oil production on federally controlled property including the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and onshore drilling in the lower 48 states, Kish said.

As the price of gas continues to rise, one option for consumer relief being considered by President Barack Obama is the release of oil from the country’s emergency supply of 700 million barrels in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

“Rather than allowing Americans to go to work and increase the supply of oil, Obama would rather take it from the bank,” Kish said. “He’s like a rich kid who won’t get a job because he has a trust fund, a bank account he can draw down on.”

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jason smith on October 5, 2012 at 6:03pm

Fang, the middle class will be hit the hardest, if 0bama gets a second term.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Juli Cole on October 27, 2012 at 5:27pm

I am a landowner. I have yet to see any "offer" to lease my land that has any value to me. As far as I am concerned, the landowners that see nothing but dollar signs are nothing but "frack whore$", selling themselves & anyone associated with them to the highest bidder.

I am not for sale. Nor is my land.

If that is what works for others, so be it.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page