Richard Levy: Protect health

Advertisement

The Colorado House of Representatives has introduced HB 1223 to change the makeup of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The proposed changes would add more industry professionals to the commission. Last year this COGCC issued the third largest number of drilling permits in Colorado history. Do we really need more?

COGCC’s mission statement specifically calls out “a responsibility to protect public health and the prevention and mitigation of adverse environmental impacts.” This cannot be accomplished with a commission that is stacked with industry insiders.

Rep. Randy Baumgardner and Sen. Jean White need to know that Coloradans want their health and the environment protected. We do not support the changes to COGCC proposed in HB 1223.

Richard Levy

Chairman, Trappers Lake Sierra Club

Comments

sledneck 3 years, 8 months ago

Speak for yourself, Richard. Oil extraction can't be accomplished when COGCC"s board is stacked with environmental extremists either.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Yea, we do support drilling for our own oil so that we can stop supplying our enemies with the money they use to kill innocents with terrorism. It is extremely UNHEALTHY to continue to adhere to the treehugger mentality here in the USA while our POTUS, the one, sends $billions$ of US Taxpayer dollars to Brazil, George Soros and Mexico to...... DRILL FOR OIL. Hypocrisy? To the max.

Obama to Brazilians, " we want to be your biggest customer for your oil".

Where's the birth certificate? That don't sound like an American born POTUS to me. Go Trump!

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

hey see managed to link this to Obama in ONE POST!

hey see...the POTUS and the US is not SENDING MONEY TO BRAZIL OR MEXICO TO DRILL FOR OIL!

it is an american company LOANING THE MONEY!!!

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

SEE was able o bring up the Birther crap in the same post.

LOVE IT!!!!

0

Fred Duckels 3 years, 8 months ago

The Sierra club's mission is to collapse our economy so that we can proceed with haste into the new world order. After the sixties I have found that two and two no longer equal four, and the days of pulling together for the common good are long gone. The greatest generation, could solve the problems of today and we would not be on the verge of collapse.

0

exduffer 3 years, 8 months ago

Richard I take it you are also against crop irrigation. I also assume you would be adverse to buying local crops that need supplemental water.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

For mushrooms who ignore reality and only get their info from the Obama 24 hour news channels.

"Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling Too bad it's not in U.S. waters." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

"Obama to Brazil: we will buy your oil after giving you $2 billion to drill it" http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/obama-to-brazil-we-will-buy-your-oil-after-giving-you-2-billion-to-drill-it

http://offshoredrillingjobs.org/2011/04/04/why-is-obama-giving-billions-of-dollars-to-brazil-and-mexico-for-offshore-oil-drilling/

Arguing with the uninformed or the purposely misleading, what a waste of time!

And because Ken Salazar under Obama is pushing this foolish policy here in Colorado, that is why it IS associated with the DC hierarchy.

0

Steve Lewis 3 years, 8 months ago

Sierra Club's mission is to collapse the economy? Its president, Rich Levy doesn't support the common good?

Fred if the common good actually mattered to you, you would remember the Sierra Club is responsible for the scrubbers now cleaning up the mercury and other particulate emissions from the Hayden power plant.

Is your common good represented by, "drill, baby, drill"?

That rhymes completely with "More for me, More for me, More for me". Get it out of the ground for me. The next generations won't need it. Get it out NOW!

Conservative? Common good? Not.

0

housepoor 3 years, 8 months ago

"More for me, More for me, More for me". Isn't that the baby boomer mantra?

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

@ Seeuski....I should know better. You even warned me in your last post. "Arguing with the uninformed or the purposely misleading, what a waste of time!" But here goes... The articles you quoted in your last post were all OPINION pieces, they were not factual. They were continued reporting of a story that originated with Glen Beck. It is not uncommon for opinion pieces to be factually inaccurate, that is why they call them opinion. Here is the link to information provided by the US EX-EM Bank concerning the Petrobas Loans.

http://www.exim.gov/brazil/pressrelease_082009.cfm

As you will read the US EX-EM is self-supporting. It is not taxpayer funded. All money loaned must be used to purchase US goods and services. The loan process began one year prior to the Gulf oil spill and subsequent moratorium. The loan or more precisely loan guarantee was approved by a bi-partisan board (3 Republicans/ 2 Democrats) all of whom were appointed by President Bush.

Energy issues are some of the most complicated facing our Nation. They impact our economy, environment, and national security. Twisting facts on either side does nothing to solve these problems.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

Energy independence for the US is much more complicated than chanting "Drill Baby, Drill" Sometimes real solution don't fit on bumper stickers. Take Alaska for example, while the partisan fighting rages in the "lower 48" over off shore drilling and tapping ANWR. The majority of domestic oil companies cite "Sarah Palin's job-killing taxes" as their primary reason for not investing in exploration and increased production in the state.

http://www.kodiakdailymirror.com/?pid=19&id=9731

I know that it is not the standard line portrayed by Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, but it was her action as Governor of the state for two years. The legislature is now working to unwind what Ms. Palin created. As a result of her actions, the state has suffered and so has the overall US economy. Her actions made the US more dependent on foreign oil, slowed job growth and were basically opposite of her "Drill, Baby, Drill" mantra. Oil companies will invest in states where they can make the most profits. They are afterall for-profit corporations.

Getting the balance correct in dealing with the oil and gas companies, protecting the environment, and moving toward viable energy alternatives is complicated. We need reasonable conversations about the issues not elaborate conspiracy theories drawn on a chalk board.

0

Steve Lewis 3 years, 8 months ago

Rushing to DRILL MORE NOW amounts to greedily depleting our children's natural resources.

Rich Levy represents the conservative voice on drilling.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Scott, You are peddling false info very similar to how the Obama Administration operates. The bank you refer to is a Government entity and was not intended for the type of use it is currently under with Obama. It was meant to aid the export of OUR US products to foreign purchasers, not for the US Taxpayer to fund the exploitation of foreign products from Countries such as Brazil so they can sell us their oil, and as Obama said in his speech which was witnessed by everyone but you "we will be your best customer for oil". Are you directly connected to one of George Soros' talking points sites because you are really spinning the kind of junk I see coming from those sources constantly. Especially the dead link to yet another lie about Sarah Palin's job as Governor.
Here, try to understand how EX-IM is an arm of the Taxpayer and NOT a private entity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export-I...

Under your theory Fannie/Freddie, GM and Chrysler are also privately owned entities and not subsidized by US, the Taxpayers. Yes, I stand by my earlier statement you referenced.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

It's funny how the left finds ways to attack Palin. I found the story of the Alaska oil industry at another site and nowhere does it site the fact that our Government kept oil companies from drilling new fields in Alaska, which would be an important factor in the big picture. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html

Resistance to US drilling by the Dems primarily. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/offshore-drilling-potenti_n_788212.html http://www.anwr.org/Headlines/52000-ANWR-Comments-to-Feds.php http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/alaska-sues-feds-arctic-drilling-suspension_n_711226.html http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/091710/loc_afs.shtml

Blaming Sarah Palin for the FED's policies is pretty silly.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

yvb- It is their state. I agree with you. My point was that dealing with the oil and gas industry is much more complicated than chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill". I agree it is the state's right to levy taxes on the oil companies. Here's the rub. Te actions taken by Sarah Palin (which were undone this past week in the House) have slowed production in the state. That has a direct impact on the US as a whole. The link I tried to post earlier discusses many of the issues facing the state. Alaska gets 90% of its' revenue from the oil and gas industry. There are concerns about a pipeline shutdown in the near future due to low flows and the oil industry offers the former Governors actions as a reason for this. It is cheaper for them to produce oil in Alberta or Louisiana than in Alaska. This is a link from a local newspaper in Alaska.

http://www.kodiakdailymirror.com/?pid=19&id=9731

This is not some left wing conspiracy to bash Palin. These are the facts. The Republican controlled House in Alaska voted last week to do away with her biggest accomplishment as Governor. It is their state, but actions taken that kill employment, reduce federal tax revenue and lead to higher imports of oil do have a National impact.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

"Gov. Sean Parnell brought his campaign for lower oil taxes to the Rotary Club of Juneau on Tuesday, and began upping the pressure on a local legislator who suddenly became a key player in the administration’s efforts to slash Alaska’s progressive oil tax rates.

Parnell told Rotarians at the Baranof Hotel that he was convinced that reducing taxes would bring more oil industry investment dollars and more oil production to Alaska. "

“We have an opportunity to become more competitive,” Parnell said.

http://juneauempire.com/local/2011-04-05/parnell-pushes-senate-approval-oil-tax-bill

The above is a quote from the current Governor of Alaska. He took the post following Sarah Palin's resignation. This is not a left/right issue as you try to make it out to be. This is the current Republican Governor of a state fixing a problem that was created during the term of Sarah Palin.

I understand that you will find numerous posts talking about environmental issues in Alaska. That does not change the simple facts. Oil producers are saying they would invest more if the laws enacted under Governor Palin are changed. Maybe they are not being truthful and simply do not want to pay what Sarah Palin saw as their "fair share".

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700125293/ConocoPhillips-CEO-urges-change-in-Alaska-oil-tax.html?s_cid=rss-5

0

Steve Lewis 3 years, 8 months ago

yvb, You spend a lot of text attacking messengers. Please tell me why the following is "garbage":

Rushing to DRILL MORE NOW amounts to greedily depleting our children's natural resources. It is neither conservative, nor in the common interest of any generations to come.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

YVB- I know first-hand about Alaska's mental health care system. I ran Community Mental Health Centers on Kodiak Island and in Valdez. I know first-hand of the lives of the family's impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. I unlike See have had a two-hour long conversation with then gubanatorial candidate Palin concerning mental health issues facing Alaskans. Your ascertions about "Obamacare" are completley false and not based upon any fact. Most Native Alaskans receive their health care through BIA funded entities (for better or worse) and through efforts of local native associations. If you have any factual information concerning the negative impact of health care reform on the lives of Alaskans, please share them.

I agree that North America should reach a point where we do not need to impot foreign oil. However, the issue is not as simple as "tree hugger" vs. "drill, baby, drill". The point about the surplus is that if industry investment slows due to what it sees as over burdensome taxes, the oil in the pipeline will literally stop flowing. There will be no surplus.

These facts are not talked about on Fox News or other far-right websites. I support responsible production of oil and natural gas. I also understand that oil companies will always complain about the amount of taxes they pay. But, it is a fact that they are currently claiming Gov. Palin's taxes are their primary reason for not investing in exploration and production.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

@see- Did you read the link you posted? It states that the Ex-Im operates off budget, meaning it receives no tax payer funds. That makes it comletely different that Fannie/Freddie or GM/Chrysler. That is a simple fact. The loans to Petrobas or actually loan guarantees for a JP Morgan Chase loan must be used to buy US goods and services. That is a fact. This is the type of business that the bank has always conducted. The loan was approved by 5 Bush appointees.

You may disagree with the need for the bank. The largest criticism of its' existance and recent loan activities (as described in the link you posted) surround its' loaning of money to countries for the purpose of buying planes from Boeing.

The issue of importing oil from Brazil is legitimate. We should safely develop our own resources, as well as, focus on conservation and alternative energy. This will not be acheived through the further spreading of misinformation.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Well that is better @Scott, you now are at least stating that it is YOUR opinion about Sarah Palins restructuring of Alaska's oil industry policy having caused great harm to US production and jobs. The biggest accomplishment Sarah Palin achieved while Governor was the natural gas pipeline and I am sure you would not argue that point against Obama, who I'd bet you voted for. "the pipeline's promise has even been trumpeted by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, who, in a speech this summer (given well in advance of Palin's selection), praised the project's potential for "delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process." "Politics, however, has frequently gotten in the way. Palin's predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, tried to get the legislature to sign off on a gas pipeline plan that he had hammered out with the big oil companies, but the deal quickly unraveled. "The gives [to oil companies] were way in excess of what the economics required," says Alaska's Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin. (Irwin, who held the natural resources post under Murkowski as well, was fired at the time for opposing the deal, and six other top state officials resigned in protest.)" http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/09/03/a-look-at-palins-role-in-alaskas-big-natural-gas-pipeline-project

So, Sarah Palin accomplished this major achievement for the US's future along with great benefit for the residents of Alaska after defeating a big oil Governor named Murkowski, and she was even hailed by the soon to be POTUS. I assure you this story was not opinion started by Glenn Beck. And I made your job harder to make that claim in my previous post by linking to the left wings HuffPo site. Anyone that is not attached to the left side of the aisle knows that it is the FED GOV't that is the biggest obstacle to oil exploration and drilling, not a tax structure that allows for incentives for both the people of Alaska and the oil companies. Pretty ironic that the left all of a sudden is being sensitive to the profit desires of oil companies. There is a big difference between the net profit per barrel for oil companies and the FED's increasing what we pay in taxes at the pump which is what the Progressives are planning to do to us soon as Obama promised, "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket" under his leadership. Obama made a new campaign speech today, I know he was fibbing because his lips were moving.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

@Scott, You are spinning the use of Ex-Im for the spreading of our taxpayer dollars to a foreign country for that countries benefit and the intended use of this Government institution for what it was meant. And now you are agreeing that it is wrong for Obama to help finance other countries to drill for oil while we are in a forced moratorium here. No one on the Conservative side of these debates is against alternative energy sources, we are just more realistic that it will be the private sector and not Government that makes the development advances into the future of these technologies. We mustn't be forced to continue to rely on foreign sources of oil while those technologies are in the infancy stages of development and by doing so we keep enriching tyrants who hate us and use our own money against us.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

@ See If I stated that was simply my opinion, I apologize. It is also the opinion of Gov Parnell (Sarah Palin's Lt Governor who became governor when she resigned and that of the Connoco Phillips CEO) I support the development of the natural gas pipeline. Murkowski was corrupt. However, at this point, their is no pipeline. The Canadian-based corporation selected to build the pipeline has not done so. There are also questions about whether it ever will happen.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MHKV6G0.htm

Again, these are facts. It is not a left/right issue. It is about facts. I do not support the profit aspirations of big oil. They are some of the most greedy corporations to ever exist. I am simply pointing out the fact of why they claim they are not producing more oil in the US.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

@ See. I am in no way spinning the use, purpose or function of the Ex-IM. It's purpose is to facilitate the export of us goods and services. That is what is happening in the Petrobas deal. That is all that is happening. The bank's activities have nothing to do with whether or not the US buys a drop of oil from Brazil. This is not about President Obama. It is about creating jobs here in America. WOuld you rather China loan them all the money? The oil resources off of Brazil's coast will be developed. Do you not think it makes sense to create jobs by selling them US goods and services?

Not everything that happens is part of a giant conspiracy. You ascertion that prices are higher today in the US due to low inventory is false. We actually currently have record inventories of oil. Oil is traded globally. Producing more here does not mean prices for oil will necessarily drop. Brazil producing more oil does not necessarily mean prices will drop.

0

Steve Lewis 3 years, 8 months ago

Does anyone on the conservative side of these debates ever promote energy conservation?

0

Fred Duckels 3 years, 8 months ago

Steve, Yes the Sierra club has made some good contributions, and taken the bows for even more. We are in a precarious time for energy and the lefties want to take the reins with their all knowing intellect. We have just gone down this road on affordable housing and it has ended in the ash heap. It was no match for the magic of the market. The same lefties are now charging ahead with zero awareness of the uninternded consequences, they are emotional and lack rational business logic. We are married to fossil fuel for a long time and it is the market that will make changes. The Sierra type folks lost on cap and trade, Sage Grouse and Polar bears with tears in their eyes are the political tools of today. To follow the folly of the left is suicide for our economy, but from the observation of many this may just be acceptable collateral damage. If conservation is such a good idea why is the left so adverse to reducing our debt by stopping the spending?

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

see..it's YOU who is ignorant.

The US IS NOT GIVING THE BRAZIANS A LOAN>

IT IS AN AMERICAN COMPANY!!

BAHAHAHA

0

Kristopher Hammond 3 years, 8 months ago

The USA consumes 20 million barrels a day, 7.3 billion barrels a year. We produce about 25-30% of that domestically, the rest we must import. ANWR reserves are estimated at a max of 19 billion barrels, and it is impossible to bring it all online at once. Show me how we can drill our way out of this.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Sooooo, I didn't realize that all along Alaska had the green light to drill for oil but it was that pesky Sarah Palin who screwed up by making the oil companies negotiate in good faith, dang. So now that the American people know VIA Scott Selby that we can drill here and drill now, will we rise and demand it? Will you Scott? Lets see if you can get those lazy oil companies to go and drill where they know they will be able to extract oil, and ofcourse because you say so the FEDs will allow it, right? And somehow the Ex-Im bank that is mandated by Congress is "loaning" our money to Petrobras because they will then by something from the USA and somehow create US jobs? What are the loan terms for repayment? Is it similar to the terms that Fannie/Freddie, another taxpayer subsidy, has? When the losses hit get it from John Q. Public? When will you people see the forest for the trees? We GAVE the Brazilians our money to drill for oil which we will buy from them and that is exactly how your friend Obama described it, not me.

I still love that you are spinning the big oil companies tact of crying about not drilling because of lowered profits, that propaganda is a joke. Claiming that no oil companies will extract resources for a profit, all be it less then desired, when these resources are NOT reproducible once gone is a farce. Some of both of our arguments are opinion and my opinion here is that the big oil companies are playing Parnell and and many political pundits like a banjo, they will drill for their reduced profits in the end, these are negotiating tactics and Sarah Palin just had the backbone to stand up to those pigs. Maybe Parnell needs a kick in the rear.

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

why are we still even holing onto the "oil ideal"

good grief people.

lets put money NOW into building alternative energy sources that combined can wither our reliance on foreign oil.

we need it NOW not in 10/15 years when alaska oil will be on line.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

"Studies of the ANWR coastal plain indicate it may contain between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (between 11.6 and 31.5 billion barrels in-place). With enhanced recovery technology, ANWR oil could provide an additional 30 to 50 years of reliable supply. Natural gas, produced with the oil, could be reinjected or added to a new gas pipeline originating in Prudhoe Bay."

30-50 YEARS of supply, is that not enough time to figure out the so called "new green technology"? And yea Lewi, Conservatives believe in Conservation, just not at the expense of human life and war, which is what our forced purchases of foreign oil has caused and will cause again like in Libya, you guys voted for this Obama guy who started this war and has been the catalyst for the turmoil throughout the oil rich Middle East. GREAT!!

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

WE (AMERICAN TAXPAYER) ARE NOT LOANING BRAZIL MONEY!!!!

GOOD GRIEF!

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

NO WE ARE NOT, THAT IS CORRECT, WE ARE GIVING THEM OUR MONEY AT THE ORDER OF OBAMA!!! IT WAS OUR MONEY, NOT ANYMORE. MAYBE YOU COULD SOURCE THE FUNDS AND MAKE YOUR CLAIM STICK.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

"Commercial production of Arctic Alaska offshore oil and gas resources would generate government revenue estimated at $97 billion (in 2010 dollars) in the Beaufort Sea and $96 billion in the Chukchi Sea over 50 years, said the Feb. 18 study, which was commissioned by Shell Exploration & Production Co. Of the $193 billion of total revenue, the federal government would receive $167 billion, Alaska’s state government would get $15 billion, local governments in the state would get $4 billion, and other state governments would receive $6.5 billion, it said." “Impediments to more American energy continue to be found above ground, not below,” Holt declared. “We know we have the resources to generate these jobs, revenue, and economic growth—as demonstrated by the billions of dollars already invested in the Alaska OCS. Yet companies are being prevented from acting on these investments by permitting delays, frivolous litigation, and other makeshift roadblocks.” http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/8771006411/articles/oil-gas-journal/general-interest-2/20100/february-2011/study-lists_alaska.html

@Scott, It seems the oil companies are spending money for these projects but the FED and the Greenies are throwing out roadblocks.Hmmmm.

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

good god.

so how is it YOUR money?

who did Obama ORDER to give money to Brazil?

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

Oh and hey SEE...this is right up your alley.

did you see on fox news that Obama caused some kid to commit suicide?

really...it was on fox news!!!

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

see...the articles YOU linked to were opinon pieces.

they are meant to be opinion not fact.

you know that...right?

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

See- I never suggested there was not oil in ANWR. Although the estimates vary, there is obviously a large supply. In your ranting you failed to disprove anything I said was a fact. You can not do so because.....they are facts. I provided you links to REAL news stories, provided you quotes from the current governor (who became governor after Sarah Palin quit), I showed you a direct quote from the CEO of Connoco Phillips who stated they would invest $2 billion more in exploration and production if the tax laws were changed, I showed you the truth about the natural gas pipeline (it may never be built and is tied up in numerous legal battles with the oil/gas companies and may be economically prohibitive ),

I showed you factual information concerning the Ex-Im bank. I stated rationally that Brazil's oil fields will be developed with or without US investment (that's different than tax payer investment). I pointed it out to you that it makes economic sense to create US jobs through loans of this type. I pointed out to you that the link you posted stated clearly that the bank does not operate at tax payer expense. It has actually generated over $4 billion dollars in revenue for the treasury though fees it charges for its' services.

I at no time stated that the Federal government is not involved with lawsuits in the state of Alaska concerning drilling issues. I at no time stated I was opposed to drilling. I pointed out to you some facts that countered your ideological stance. You have done nothing to dispove anything I stated. I said that it is extreme ideological stances that impede rational conversations about issues such as these. If you can disprove anything I have stated through a presentation of factual information, I would be more than happy to read it.

However, when you have been proven wrong by a presentation of facts (as you have been) TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT HELP YOU. You are entitled to your owm beliefs.You are not entitled to your own facts.

0

Kristopher Hammond 3 years, 8 months ago

Using See's figures: Assuming ANWR has 16bn bbl, and it will take 30-50-years to drill and pump it out, that's 530m bbl/yr (26 days' worth) for 30 years or 320m bbl/year (16 days' worth) for 50 years.

Even with ANWR pumping at full capacity, we HAVE TO import oil.

Who looks like a better long-term trading partner--Brazil or Saudi Arabia/Iraq/Iran/Russia? Brazilians are our friends and in our hemisphere. The others ain't.

0

Steve Lewis 3 years, 8 months ago

yvb, Sorry, I don't believe any religion condones your believed license to screw future generations by consuming the lion's share of our natural resources.

Neither is it fair to assume technology will balance your greed for them. The increased difficulty of energy supply is evidenced all around you - rather than getting easier, the "saving technology" is beginning to foul our bed in damaging ways.

You are NOT a conservative. You are a risk prone liberal who is willing to eat mercury and drink fouled water, simply to avoid rules against mercury and fouled water.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

I echo your post about facts and me disproving your sources as nothing more than your ideological position based on opinion pieces you keep linking to. You discount links to studies I post, you discount Obama's own speeches as false on the Petrobras loan, you discount the fact that the Federal Government has a moratorium on new oil drilling leases, but you want to claim Sarah Palin is the reason for US oil imports. Spare me. If it is your claim that if Alaska gives the big oil companies a bigger share of profit the happy drilling days are here again, you my friend are blowing smoke up you know where. Obama and his greenies have been blocking oil production in the USA since day one, we were all alive during the debates over this for the last few years. Give it a break already with this propaganda you are peddling. I don't even think you need to worry about Sarah Palin running for POTUS anyway, so you may want to go after Trump or someone like that.

And my caps were a sarcastic retort to that no nothing 1999. And shawant, those are not my figures, they are figures produced by a research group, and oil companies wouldn't be willing to spend the billions of $$$$ on R+D for new drilling if these studies showed such a low amount of oil in the ground, WAKE UP and get real. Why are you people so ready to give our money to foreign suppliers instead of spending it here and having production under US control? I just don't get it.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Yes housepoor, you need to fear the power of the Tea Party movement and these lefty propaganda pieces will, and have, been hugely successful in generating interest by middle America in this group. Thanks for your post, it only helps shed light on the desperation of your left wing media and the Progressives for their losing agenda which, thanks to the Tea Party, is meeting powerful resistance from average Americans who are taking back power. How ironic that the left hates religion as long as it is the Judeo/Christian style, but heaven forbid someone makes a fuss over Islam and who comes to the rescue? The same left wingers, hypocrites!

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

See- I keep stating the facts and you have done nothing to disprove any of them from being what they are.....facts. I am not sure how else to state them. You fail to recognize that there are numerous other market forces that effect oil and gas exploration and production. It is not a simple matter of the environmental lobby acting against producers. Oil and gas companies,as I have previously stated, are for-profit companies. They will develop in places where they can make the most money.

I have not linked to ANY opinion pieces in presenting these facts. That is a false allegation on your part. The situation in Alaska is factual. That is the situation that is occurring. You may not like it that the current governor is "attacking" the tax structure put in place by Sarah Palin, but that is what is occurring.

This leads to a few conclusions. He may be wrong. If that is the case and he is wrong on such a huge issue, you would wonder why Sarah Palin felt confortable with him becoming governor when she quit. He may be a "sell out" to the oil industry. That is possible and if that is the case, then you have to wonder why Sarah Palin felt comfortable with him becoming governor after she quit. The oil companies may simply be not telling the truth. If that is the case and they would lie about something put in place by Sarah Palin, then would it also not be possible that they would lie about the impact of environmental regulation?

As I stated before, you are entitled to your own opinion. That opinion becomes less credible when it denies factual information. You seem to want to twist every issue into some type of partisan battle. That is counter productive. It leads to false beliefs being held and poor decision making by our elected leaders. No matter your political beliefs, I would think you would recognize the need to make decisions and form opinions based upon factual information.

0

the_Lizard 3 years, 8 months ago

Louisiana's Vitter has ask the following questions Specifically, could you please provide the following information:

  1. The name of all U.S. companies that have increased exports based on this loan.
  2. The specific product exports that have increased based on this loan.
  3. The return on investment for this loan during the next 5 and 10-year windows.
  4. The name of all U.S. and foreign investors, including institutional investors, that increased their shareholdings in Petrobras in excess of $50 million within a 6 month period before and after the ExIm loan. http://vitter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=c4c4d3fe-db44-bdb1-25d2-0ec2e32fb47b Can anyone deny that these are important questions? Supporters of this loan, however may already have the answers to them, we'll wait.. 1999 duh Ex-IM is not an "American Comapny. It's an independent government entity, run by government apponitees. It's main reason for being is to finance and support the export of American goods. (see Vitter's questions above perhaps you know how the loan has been good for American interests as per the EX-IM charter) Another discrepency concerning this loan and the laws governing EX-IM. "On June 14, 2002, President Bush signed P.L. 107-189 , the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2002. Two of the most important provisions of the act include a sense of Congress that requires the Bank to prepare a human rights impact assessment for any project over $10 million," http://crapo.senate.gov/issues/banking/2007-01-19-ex-imbank.pdf I was under the impression that the extraction and use of gas and oil was harmful to mother earth and to humans health and well being. This adminstration via the silly cowboy hat wearing guy has told us as much. I'd like to see that human rights impact statement... (hypocrisy)
0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

Lizard- Those are all very legitimate questions raised by Vitter. Here is a press release from the Ex-Im that answers a few of those. From what I have read, no money has actually even changed hands yet. Part of what the Ex-Im did was provide loan guarantees for JP Morgan Chase (as part of the $2 billion). In the press release you will find the phone number and email for the Petrobas representative based in Houston. His name is listed as a contact for businesses in the US who would like to provide goods and services resulting from the Ex-Im Loan.

http://www.exim.gov/pressrelease.cfm/1C3E8A59-FA74-F3CB-3F3E6E44E287C2DA/

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

Lizard- Here is some additional information concerning the "loan". It states no formal documents have even been signed at this point, no money has changed hands, If no money has changed hands, I would imagine it would be hard to produce a list of companies that has benefited. I would assume Vitter knows all of these things. There may be numerous valid reasons to complain about US drilling policy. This whole issue seems to be nothing more than a side-show.

http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/03/21/how-the-wall-street-journal-set-off-a-firestorm-against-petrobras/?partner=yahootix

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Loan guarantees, hmmmm. Fannie/Freddie=taxpayer guaranteed Ex-Im=taxpayer guaranteed We are the only ones doling out the money.

@Scott, you keep changing the argument, I do not deny that there are market factors outside of Alaska and Sarah Palin that effect oil production and prices, it is you who denies the truth in that I have provided facts to show that oil drilling in this country is under attack by the leftwingers and the greenies and they are the ones in power, not Palin and her former policy on Alaska's oil exploration. I contend that after 2012 and the election of a USA friendly POTUS we shall see the softening of anti oil drilling policies and the state of Alaska will once again get to work in the fields, just under a worse policy for the residents of Alaska and a 10% better net profit for the big oil companies. Either way, the oil resources will only be exploited under the leadership of a new POTUS in 2012.
So yes, your positions that you are taking here are opinions that you found from others about future jobs and revenues from the industry. Easy to predict, and easy to use against a potential presidential run by Sarah Palin. Keep up the SOROS work. And I can't speak for Parnell's decision making, but if I were an Alaskan I would rather have the deal Sarah Palin worked out. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2691104/posts#comment

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

See-- I would address you by name, but I do not know it. You have not dispoven anything I have stated as fact. You can't because as I have said they are facts. You also have no idea of my political leanings, my voting record or anything about me for that matter. I simply pointed out facts to you that you do not like. The facts are that oil companies (I provided you a link) are claiming they are not investing in exploration and production in Alaska on lands where they have permits to do so because of the tax structure put in place by Sarah Palin. The Republican led House in the state has passed legislation changing that. It may or may not pass the Senate. And yes, less oil production from one of most oil rich states does force us to import more foreign oil. That is a fact. You do not like me pointing this out because you are ideologically tied to Sarah Palin. In your last post you even argued in favor of higher taxes for corporations. That does not sound very Tea Party-like to me. So, either the taxes are too high or the current governor, Republican House and the oil companies are not being truthful and are trying to cheat the people of Alaska. It is that simple. It seems like it would simply be much easier to admit that Gov Palin may have made a mistake. Actions do have consequences. Do you think it is possible that one of those consequences would be oil companies investing elsewhere? That is one of the market drivers I was referring to in my earlier post. Would it be so horrible for you to have to admit that Sarah Palin made a mistake?

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

As far as the Ex-Im goes. It is true it is a governmental agency that was moved off-buget a few years ago, It receives no tax payer dollars. I disproved your initial allegation concerning the specific Petrobas loan so now you have moved onto attacking the bank as a whole. Whether the government should be involved at all in guaranteeing loans is a legitimate question. Fannie and Freddie operated for years successfully. Their downfall came with the lowering of loan standards, banks taking advantage of this and unscrupulous firms like Goldman Sachs activities in the derivatives market. I am admittedly not overly familiar with the workings of the Ex-Im. Here is a link that provides a state-by-state break down of specific businesses helped through the activities of the Ex-Im. These incluude numerous businesses here in Colorado.

https://webappsprod01.exim.gov/apps/usmap/usmap.nsf

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Self aggrandizement means nothing to me, maybe to you Scott, and my name is seeuski.

Quote from Scott: "You have not dispoven anything I have stated as fact. You can't because as I have said they are facts.'

Uh, OK if you say so Scott. Can you please state here and now if states like Alaska can drill here and drill now without the Federal Governments approval, you seem to ignore that major hurdle in your sad arguments. The position that you are playing on the Brazilian oil issue took a while to be distributed by the Soros funded blogs, but it is a pitiful attempt at smoothing over Obama's image in advance of the 2012 campaign season which we are entering into. It won't play well during the debates, I can't wait for the political ads that will certainly use this blunder. Interesting how you combined the Palin attack with the poor excuse being used to explain away this anti US policy. So I guess Obama's response is, we invested in USA exports to Brazil. The only problem is the export is our cash for their drilling.

0

Kristopher Hammond 3 years, 8 months ago

see: Wake up and get real? This is real: We use 20 million barrels a day. This is real: Our current production PLUS ANWR at full volume will not equal that. This is real: We MUST import oil with or without ANWR. This is just my opinion: I would prefer buying oil from a nation that is friendly, nearby, and stable. This is real: Our top oil suppliers in order are Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Are you saying 2 out of 5 ain't bad?

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

See--- I have no need for self-aggrandizement. I am comfortable with who I am. None of the information I provided you came from a "Soros" site. It came from local Alaskan newspapers. It quoted the CEO of Connoco Phillips and the governor of Alaska, as well as, information from the official US Ex-IM Bank website. And I never stated that anyone could drill anywhere without the Federal Governments approval. Yes, they have to have it. However, there are right now...as I type this....lands in Alaska that could be explored today. The companies are hesitant to do so and are working to lower the tax rates in the state for the purpose of generating more profits. Why is it considered an attack when I point out the facts of what is occurring?

I never stated that we should not produce more of our own oil and gas. US companies profiting from another country doing the same thing is a good thing. Isn't that capitalism? Are you somehow opposed to US companies profiting from exporting goods and services? Are you so blindly ideologically entrenched that you can not see the economic benefit of products made in the US being exported? Is it wrong that the Ex-Im also guaranteed loans for exports from Boeing and Caterpillar?

Like I have stated before, not everything is partisan, not everything is a conspiracy. Not everything said on Fox News or MSNBC is true. The tragedy is when someone is presented with the facts and refuses to acknowledge them.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

We have come to the end of this tragic discussion I feel, what more can be said and how can it be said differently so as to influence either one of our opinions? You keep muddying the waters with thoughts like "Is it wrong that the Ex-Im also guaranteed loans for exports from Boeing and Caterpillar?" How does the fact that Obama, in his own words in Brazil, is bragging about funding the drilling of oil in Brazil and then expressing his desire to be their biggest purchaser of oil? How is that exporting product from the US? which is what Ex-Im is intended. You are the one who brought Ex-Im into this discussion in the attempt to white wash the sad facts that Obama is shutting down oil production here while spending our money in Brazil and Mexico for....oil production. The concept that if Sarah Palins so called unfair taxes on big oil in Alaska would be reduced it would spur new oil exploration is fodder. We know through previous studies where the biggest reserves of oil are located and, as is your habit in this argument, you have ignored the studies which I have linked up to which were conducted by several expert groups including oil companies. Those reserves are being kept from production by the Obama Administration and the green groups which are behind continuous litigation to prevent any future drilling. Why wouldn't big oil make the claims you are touting? That would give them a 10% increase on profits from the reserves they are currently exploiting. Can't you see the harm in returning Alaska, and the greater USA, back to the fatcat policies that Sarah Palin so courageously fought against and defeated in years past? Yea, I am for lower taxes on the US Citizen and smaller Government, and a fair system of State taxes and incentives for oil companies as is the case in Alaska, well was the case I guess. And one last thing Scott, you keep referencing FOX news and Glenn Beck as my sources, this is what gives you away as a Soros mouth piece because I used not ONE source from the FOX network, I even used several from the HuffPo, which I despise. Have a great weekend, and try to conserve your fuel as the prices are still rising because of that Sarah Palin woman.NOT, but an obvious strategy lately by the new 2012 Obama for reelection campaign. Good luck with that junk science.

0

blue_spruce 3 years, 8 months ago

Can I get a quick shout out in here for PALIN 2012. (please)

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

see...what is wrong with the US buying Brazillian oil?

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

See--- I am sorry that you do not like facts. I am sorry that you think I am attacking Sarah Palin. You said yourself that there was no point in trying to argue with someone who is intentionally misleading, but I fell for it and tried to present you with facts anyway. I do have one more fact for you.

"Ex-Im Bank Finances U.S. Export Sale to Build High-Technology Deep Water Oil and Gas Production Platform off Brazil"

http://www.exim.gov/pressrelease.cfm/19B9CB5A-9A39-AE82-FB57A98A9E856658/

As you will read, this happened in 2005. We have been helping Brazil, through exproting good and services to them (with the assistance of the EX-IM) for years. It is the far-right and people who are willing to tell you half-truths and out-right lies that you should be upset with. I brought up Fox because the whole Brazil oil thing started with Glen Beck and was then reprinted in the Wall Street Journal (owned by the parent company of FOX) in the opinion section. You then presented it as fact in this blog.

I have continuaaly provided you with facts that disprove every allegation you have raised concerning the issues. You continue to ignore them. The danger in a democracy is not only an uniformed electorate, but an intentionally misinformed electorate. You have a great weekend too.

0

freerider 3 years, 8 months ago

Friend of the Earth = enemy of the people

If you really want to help the earth go kill yourself

Man = cancer cell

Have a nice day !!!

0

Troutguy 3 years, 8 months ago

Scott, you're wasting your breath. Facts mean nothing to the uninformed.
See, where do you get your info on Obama shutting down domestic oil production? In 2009, Obama's 1st year in office, domestic oil production went up 8.29%, from 2008 levels (4.9 milllion barrels), to 5.3 million barrels a day. In 2010, domestic production was up another 2.8% to 5.5 million barrels a day. The last time we produced that much domestic oil was in 2003. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production As you can see, the drill baby drill crowd really let our domestic oil production slip from 2000-2008. 5.8 million barrels a day in 2000. 4.9 million barrels a day in 2008.

0

the_Lizard 3 years, 8 months ago

Trout, That is a fact, but just was wondering what the Obama adminstration did to create the increase in domestic production. I noticed production went down from 2009 to 2010 and is expected to decrease more this year. Wonder why. Giving Obama credit for high oil production in the first year of his presidency just makes me wonder, considering the long process from permitting to production. Do you have links or info. that would answer those questions? Thx to Scott for the links on loans from Ex-Im to Brazil. .

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Holy cow!!! While trying to discern Troutguys interesting graph I discovered that something else was being produced that seems to have replaced the reduction of Oil production...biodiesel and ethenol.

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=biodiesel&graph=production

Ethenol.. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=biodiesel&graph=production

Ex-Im is controlled by the powers to be and backed by the good faith and credit of the Taxpayers, just like we are the big losers in the Fannie/Freddie debacle. I stand by my previous postings and the ideological lines are obvious in this argument. If it were Bush that went to Brazil and bragged I doubt my foes here would take the same position as they are today in the 2012 Obama reelection campaign season.

Good luck in your efforts, not really, and thanks for ignoring my points/questions from earlier. I intend to delve in deeper regarding this Ex-Im controversy and will see what comes up. I do find it interesting/fishy that much of the info coming from my opponents here is straight from recent Ex-Im news releases along with much of the Soros funded sources like snopes and media matters which are very defensive in nature and being that this agency is Governmental and was not directly targeted by the media in the honest reports, no matter who the source, of the Petrobras funding by the Obama Administration.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

See---- I would challenge you to delve deeper into the Ex-Im ginned-up, imagined, controversy. I would challenge you to personally call every business in Colorado that has benefited from loans through the off-budget, non-tax payer funded albeit government sponsored organization.

Ethanol subsidies should be stopped. They make no sense. While you are investigating you might want to see who those subsidies go to. You might be surprised.

See----you are not my foe. If you perceive someone who presents you with verifiable facts as your foe....so be it. I also never quoted Snopes or Media Matters. I did point out to you that the Ex-Im was loaning money to Brazil as early as 2005. Again another fact.

I am not sure what questions you asked that I did not address. I would be happy to if you will restate them.

I do have one more little fact for you. Just today, the President of BP Alaska pleaded for the tax structure to be changed and claimed (his claim not mine) the Palin tax structure as the reason for decreased oil exploration and production in the state.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/15/us-bp-alaska-idUSTRE73E03A20110415?feedType=RSS&amp&amp&sp=true

Again, have a good weekend.

0

Troutguy 3 years, 8 months ago

Oil production is not down. Oil production has increased over the last two years. 2008 4.95 million barrels a day. 2009 5.36 million barrels a day. 2010 5.51 million barrels a day.

See, It really can't be that hard to read a graph, can it? I read the link to the graph you posted regarding biodiesel , and found it pretty interesting (and it was pretty easy to discern). The push for bio-diesel and ethanol was started under the previous administration in 2005. Production increased every year from then until 2009, when bio-diesel production decreased by 25% under....wait for it... the Obama administration's first year. As we all know, once a Govt program is started, it is almost impossible to get rid of. So, don't lay this at the Obama's feet since this program was started under the Bush Administration. Lizard, I'm not giving credit to Obama for the higher oil production in his first year. I'm just pointing out that, contrary to a recent post, Obama is not "shutting down oil production here". Quite the contrary, given the facts. It seems that some of the reason that production is up is because of new drilling techniques. Companies like Chesapeake energy have just refined the fracking method to get at crude oil. They figured out that by using different chemicals and increasing the number in cracks, they can get the oil out of the ground. Here's a link I found that explains it pretty well. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us_shale_oil_3 Also, the morotorium on deep water drilling was lifted last October, with 10 new permits issued since February. 2 rigs are already up and running, with a third on the way. http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/04/15/oil-drilling-underway

0

the_Lizard 3 years, 8 months ago

Of course new technology has opened up drilling opportunites that weren't previously there, but my point was; oil and gas companies have navigated through permitting, regulations lawsuits and so on to have arrived at 2009 where production was higher. A long arduous process. So previous adminstrations such as the Bush adminstration's more lenient permitting process is one majpr reason there is higher domestic oil production now. Contrary to your assertion and despite 1999's cheerleading Obama is hurting oil and gas production. Shutting down was an exageration, but he and his minions have cancelled exisitng permits in Utah and Montana.and the remainder of drilling permits in AK which will hurt oil production in the future. (and that's just scraping the surface) Sure they lifted the moratorium in Oct. on deepwater drilling (wink)They delayed and ignored court orders to allow deepwater drilling until a court gave them thirty days to act in Feb. They delayed enough times to cause companies to relocate their rigs. The push for ethanol came under Bush... Really? They stupidly cranked up the production of ethanol to appease the biofuel lobby, but it's production increased by 33% under the Obama adminstration.

Since 2008, ethanol production has increased by 33%.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/policy/green-fuel-empty-stomachs/articleshow/7789976.cms

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

Ethanol subsidies make no sense. They seem to only serve the needs of legislators from corn producing states and oil companies involved in biodiesel/ethanol. We can disagree all the time about what is holding up oil production in the US, but does it really matter when US companies are willing to sell their interests in the US to China? Chesapeake recently sold 1/3 of their oil and gas assets in south Texas to China. Americans may buy and use the gas, but China gets the profits. I am all for capitalism, but I think it may be time for some patriotism.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/what-china-seeks-in-chesapeake-shale-deal/

Chesapeake acknowledged in a presentation to its investors this month that it had “earned its reputation as the partner of choice for international oil companies wishing to establish or build operations in the U.S. and who are seeking to learn unconventional oil and natural gas technology and processes.”

So, whether oil and gas production is up or down in the US, it seems like we will still be buying part of it from China and giving them the technology to lower energy costs in their own country, lessening the costs of manufacturing, so we can buy more from them. At some point we have got to stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Repetition required. Quite interesting how you are now the unofficial spokesman and negotiator for BP Scott. BP will drill for the profits that would be made under the Palin structure if the FEDS stopped the raodblocks, and if THEY won't their competitors WILL. Some may fall for these Dem campaign tactics, but not the informed and aware. And as to Ex-Im, again you brought that into the argument and I never said they don't do what they were intended to for small business exports, but I intend to look into why Obama has increased the loans to Petrobras, VIA Ex-Im, by several $billion$ recently and then bragged about how we would be their biggest customer. I hope you realize that the taxpayers are on the hook for that money similar to the Fannie backing bad loans as I brought up previously again to know acknowledgment from you. Anyway, here is my previous post which you ignored and answers your BP position.

("Commercial production of Arctic Alaska offshore oil and gas resources would generate government revenue estimated at $97 billion (in 2010 dollars) in the Beaufort Sea and $96 billion in the Chukchi Sea over 50 years, said the Feb. 18 study, which was commissioned by Shell Exploration & Production Co. Of the $193 billion of total revenue, the federal government would receive $167 billion, Alaska’s state government would get $15 billion, local governments in the state would get $4 billion, and other state governments would receive $6.5 billion, it said." “Impediments to more American energy continue to be found above ground, not below,” Holt declared. “We know we have the resources to generate these jobs, revenue, and economic growth—as demonstrated by the billions of dollars already invested in the Alaska OCS. Yet companies are being prevented from acting on these investments by permitting delays, frivolous litigation, and other makeshift roadblocks.” http://www.ogj.com/index/article-disp...

@Scott, It seems the oil companies are spending money for these projects but the FED and the Greenies are throwing out roadblocks.Hmmmm.)

April 14, 2011 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

See- I brough up the EX-IM because that is the off-budget, non-taxpayer funded, albeit government sponsored agency that signed the initial letter of committment (made by 5 Bush appointees) for the loan. The money will be used to buy goods and services from the US. This began in 2005.

I never denied that environmental issues and concerns were not causing delays in offshore drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. So, I am not sure how to answer that question. You are right there are environmental challenges by the Native Alaskan Villages who own the coast line land in the area. I thought you would support the rights of property owners to challenge the government, but I guess I was wrong. You are also correct that there are numerous other groups that oppose the drilling. There is alot of ground between the extreme views of the Sierra Club (Yes, I think they are way too extreme) and the honest concerns of Alaskan Villages. It is entirely posisble that there may more tahn one issues that is limiting drilling in Alaska?

As far as, the state oil tax goes, I have one simple question for you.....would you support a top marginal rate of 85% for oil companies operating in Colorado? If you would not, then your support for the current tax structure in Alaska seems foolish. That is what it currently is. Would you supprot Colorado implementing the same tax structure? Would you go to a rally demanding higher taxes now as a means to close our budget gap?

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Do you understand that the citizens of Alaska own the oil? And it is them who benefits from the tax's collected? I suppose not. You are spinning on these issues and again, the American people are not going to continue to blame Bush and Palin for what the Left wingers and Obama are causing in these terrible economic times. Gas prices are worse than anytime under Bush and again Scott, we are giving $billions$ of taxpayer dollars disguised as private investment, Obama can't direct private monies, to Petrobras which was owned at the time partly by George Soros who subsequently sold his shares for a profit. Being that Soros largely subsidized the election of Obama, it is not a leap to see collusion here. Petrobras will drill Brazilian oil to sell to the USA as Obama stated, what is so hard to understand about that fact? You keep claiming that we are selling something to Brazil, what?

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Oooh, I am finding some good stuff on Ex-Im bank. Stay tuned, I may have to retract my statement about Soros divesting in Petrobras. Keep up the cheerleading though Scott, I love it, the mouthpiece for the cover up of what looks like a huge scandal. Keep believing what your preaching, it is verbatim from Obama's recent Ex-Im appointee, Hochberg.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

See- You should tread very carefully on your stance about Alaskan oil. You are on the verge of preaching socialism. Would you support an 85% marginal tax rate on oil production in Colorado? Simple question. It only requires a "yes" or a "no". Wouldn't the citizens of Colorado benefit in the same way as the citizens of Alaska or at some point would companies move to another state or country with more beneficial (to them) tax rates?

We are selling all kinds of things to Brazil. Under the Ex-Im agreement we have discussed. We are not selling anything. No money has changed hands. Was there collusion in 2005 when the same Ex-Im approved loans to Petrobras? You claim the oil companies are being dishonest in their ascertion about the tax structure's effects on the industry, yet you believe and support their claims about the environmental issues delaying our energy independence in the US.

So, should we extend the same 85% marginal tax rate to coal producers in the state of Colorado? Again, a "yes" or "no" answer is all that is required.

0

George Danellis 3 years, 8 months ago

Wow, I just saw how many comments have been posted to this letter to the paper by Rich Levy of The local Sierra Club chapter. Please allow me to add my 2 cents.

For myself, the issue of the make up of this commission is tied to the notion of how decisions are made for us by government and its supportive bureaucracy. I don't believe that there isn't a one of us who doesn't want informed, reasonable individuals representing us in a process designed to yield results that are in the best interest of society as a whole, for now and into the long term.

One aspect, Lobbying, is provided for by the constitution so that individuals and organizations can petition elected representatives on issues important to them and their well being. Over the last century, and now peaking with the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, corporations and the lobbying groups that represent them, have immense and undue influence over governance in the US, effectively limiting the influence of you and me. And it would be naive to think that corporations have the best interest of individual Americans in mind.

One change that would improve governance at this troubled time in our history (and one that legislators would need to enact against their personal best interests) would be rules that encouraged less corporate influence over governance. And that includes on on the aforementioned commission.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

@Scott, There is a big difference between a State legislature consisting of both Dems and Repubs voting on a State tax and the Fed forcing a uniform law that is prohibitive. This would be like comparing the states that voted for uniform single payer healthcare laws like Mass and Tenn and the POTUS forcing Obamacare on all of us at risk of penalty. The Constitution spells it out. I would love if you would insert your sources for such blather as the 85% tax which is a stretch. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/25620.html Here is a liberal papers story from the 2008 campaign period and it gives enough info for both of us to claim victory here. I just see the reasons for the oil companies using the excuses of higher taxes per barrel for not exploring and you are using them for the 2012 campaign as can be seen from the search engine results. Are we supposed to believe that Obama is stymied in oil production because of the tax laws in Alaska? Please. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html

If the State of Colorado had a Constitution like Alaska that kept ownership of it's natural resources in the hands of the Citizens and we supported such a deal at the voting booth, then why not? But again, it is not an 85% tax rate. Show your sources. And I intend to request of some elected officials that I know to open an investigation into this new Ex-Im Petrobras issue as it seems to be a possible political slush fund. I will look into the amounts and the details of previous Ex-Im Petrobras loans that you keep bringing up, but what I've seen so far, they are in the millions not billions, a big difference.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

See- Here you go. I will once again provide you with factual information. Have you also considered the point that oil companies are much more anxious to drill offshore because oil is subject to zero state tax in that scenario?

"The “marginal tax rate” is the rate theoretically applied to each dollar increase in oil price. In the case of ACES, the marginal tax rate is 25% until per barrel profit reaches $30 per barrel (about $56 per barrel in west coast spot price under the current cost structure), at which point it increases for every additional dollar up to a marginal tax rate of 87% when the profit reaches $92.50 per barrel (about $118.50 per barrel on the west coast)."

http://www.revenue.state.ak.us/1-14-10%20ACES%20Status%20Report%20final2%20(3).pdf

This is from the Alaska Dept. of Revenue. (Do you consider them a Soros funded group?) In addition oil companies in the state pay state property taxes. They are the only entities in the state who pay state property taxes. There is such a thing as "killing the golden goose". I have never said that Sarah Palin did not stand up to the oil companies. She did. It would appear that there is a general concensus of the Republican leadership in the state that the current tax structure goes too far and is limiting investment in the state. Those sound like conventional conservative arguments. If this scenario did not involve Sarah Palin I wonder which side you would be on.

This is the last I will post on the issue. I have supported everything I have said with facts that can be validated. As I have repeated, energy issues are some of the most important facing our nation, partisan bickering gets us nowhere. Repating false information in blogs gets us nowhere.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

This is pretty detailed accounting intense stuff Scott and if you would have come into this argument with a desire to reach an honest conclusion I wouldn't be so adversarial but here is a more accurate accounting of the workings of ACES.

"The ACES tax consists of a base rate of 25% plus a progressive surcharge, which is triggered when a company’s net profits — also known as “production tax value”— exceed $30 per barrel. Beyond this point, the base tax rate is increased by 0.4% for each additional $1 increase in per-barrel production tax value. Using current estimated transportation and production costs of roughly $26 per barrel, the surcharge would begin to be applied when west coast oil prices reach $56 per barrel. When the combined base rate and progressive surcharge reach 50% (approximately $92.50 per-barrel profit or $118.50 West Coast price) the progressive surcharge is lessened to 0.1% for each additional $1 increase in per-barrel production tax value. The maximum nominal tax rate is 75%, which would apply at a profit rate of $342.50 per barrel or $368.50 West Coast price." Your link was dead but here is a link to the actual activity and design, and it also indicates to me that this taxing system was to be reviewed over time and adjusted as actual costs and revenues could be determined. Bottom line is this detailed report shows that your claim of 85% or 87% taxing is false and clarity is needed. You are obviously in this discussion for political reasons and I am not. http://www.revenue.state.ak.us/1-14-10%20ACES%20Status%20Report%20final2%20%283%29.pdf

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

And the Ex-Im bank issue is even more interesting and will take much time and effort to try and unravel but here is one reason why all good Americans should start to pay attention to this institutions activity. "DALLAS - A News 8 investigation has found that a little known government agency may have unwittingly wasted taxpayers money on top of using the funds to support criminal activity." http://web.archive.org/web/20071231015132/http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/localnews/news8/stories/wfaa071227_mo_bankdrugs.5adabe14.html

More to come.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

ACES SUMMARY: "Overall, the information reviewed by the department indicates that ACES is performing as expected when it was passed by the Legislature in 2007. The economic provisions are resulting in the revenue levels anticipated, and the investment incentives appear to distribute the increased tax burden in a fashion that continues to encourage reinvestment, though the experience with the credit program could be improved for new explorers. Challenges remain in the implementation by the department, but they are manageable and the department is positioned to meet those challenges."

Seems to me that the legislation in place is working and that the old system of fatcat profits is dead for good. I would get on board with that under Palin, Parnell or any Democrat Governor, it looks to me like a well thought out system and that the intentions were to have annual reviews as to how it was performing.

0

scott selby 3 years, 8 months ago

See- This is truly it. Please check the date of the Department of Revenue report. It is not current as it applies to recent investment in the state for exploration, productin and revenue. Please check the spot price for west coast oil. As you will see, based upon today's price, my ascertions were correct. I apologize if I described things in terms of marginal tax rates. I assumed your understanding of accounting principles was more advanced than it appears to be.

Your support for Alaska's current tax structure may be populist, but it is far from conservative. You support a division of government (state in this instance) receiving 90% of its' revenue from one source. Eventually corporations will begin to look toward other more "tax friendly" states in which to do business. Because Alaska is part of the US when oil production decreases there, which it has, that has a direct impact on overall oil production in the US. That seems pretty straightforward.

The oil industry's strong desire to drill offshore is fairly clear. There is obviously oil there. It is much more dangerous to produce, but they will pay zero state tax.

Sarah Palin made a mistake by imposing too high of a tax burden on oil companies in the state. It is that simple. You argue in other blogs that lower taxes produce jobs, how is this different? Taxes are taxes, right? Lower corporate taxes mean more jobs, right? Except in Alaska where higher taxes have no effect because they were put in place by Sarah Palin. That truly makes no sense.

0

seeuski 3 years, 8 months ago

Happy spinning Scott. Sarah hasn't even announced yet and all this effort by the left. Those poor slob oil execs, what shall they do? Rely on the sheep to promote their argument as it suits the needs of the re-elect Obama movement.

Oil production in the US is being hampered by the leftwing green groups and the political machine, not Alaska's tax policy.

0

trump_suit 3 years, 8 months ago

Debating with Seeuski is like playing tennis against a brick wall. Regardless of the facts, the ball always comes back with the same spin.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.