Let's talk about Oil prices
By ZephyrSun
@ZephyrSun (7381)
United States
September 14, 2008 1:23pm CST
I think that energy prices have become a big issue with this election. Whether we should drill or not drill, find alternative energy sources so on and so forth. In my personal opinion the energy prices effect the economy more than some would like to believe. As we all know the price of gasoline went up a lot with Ike coming into Texas shutting down the oil industry that comes from that area of the United States.
As I was researching this I found an interesting article. This may not be news to you but, it is to me. I found that in Alaska the state takes about 75% of the value of a barrel of oil in "taxes" and "fees".
Here is a quote from the article, "ConocoPhillips said that in total, once royalty payments and other taxes are added in, the state captures about 75 percent of the value of a barrel."
Another quote, "BP Alaska, which runs Prudhoe Bay, said earlier this year that it had delayed the development in the western region of the North Slope as a result of the tax. ConocoPhillips cited the same reason for scrapping a $300 million refinery project.
"What the tax has done is take away all the upside," said Doug Suttles, president of BP Alaska. The U.K.-based oil company paid more than $500 million in taxes to Alaska last quarter — far more than it earned in profits from Alaskan oil, according to Suttles."
After reading the entire article it really leaves me wondering as to how taxes these oil companies so much, how does it help energy prices and the economy?! Any thoughts or opinions? Or is this great and we should have this as a system for the federal government?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html
2 people like this
7 responses
@ngaspero (851)
• Italy
14 Sep 08
Hi Zephir...I get hungry every time I think about oil price..You have to knows that hier in Italy 1 LITER (not a gallon that's ca. 3.8 liter) cost 1.40 euro (that means 2 $!!!) and from this price 70% are TAX..fast unebiliveable..but also in rest of europre the price is not that better it goes up from 1.20 euro...but hier in Italy is on the top..
Nun
3 people like this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
14 Sep 08
That is a lot. I believe that we really need to find alternative "fuels" instead of oil. And taxes oil companies less would also help with oil prices. Nice to see you again.
1 person likes this
@ngaspero (851)
• Italy
15 Sep 08
Hi Zephyr, I think that if there was the real desire to find alternative they were already reality, but the world oil company are to strong to permitt right now something like that, without forget that a lot of country live with oil..tje problem is not so easy and I'm afraid that until an end of oil is not in view it'll be no effective alternativ to that..
Nun
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 Sep 08
I have to be honest, I was not real happy to see that Palin had increased the windfall profit tax on oil companies and then redistributed the revenue. It seemed to me the first time I had heard Obama mention doing this nationaly that it would discourage and be a disincentive for companies to drill here instead of abroad. Canada in particular could benefit, as recent survey's there have found more oil in the Alberta tar sands than previously thought, far more. But I suppose it would be better to see the money go to canada rather than Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or aother nations that tolerate us only because we are one of their largets customers. But better still to see it stay here in the U.S. Not being able to find any information on how the increased tax in Alaska effected production. There seems to be no specific data on it other than the statements by people talked with in the article. But just that little bit does give a glimps in to verification to the theory that economics follows consistant principals.
We must remember though that this was done at the state level and did not effect any other companies drilling in the U.S. What would happen if this were suddenly done on the national level? This would be in addition to the taxes imposed by oil producing states on oil companies, in effect, doubling the tax burden on oil companies and doubleing the incentive to drill elsewhere and decrease production nationaly. I also have not yet seen how Gov. Palin feels about implimenting this on a national level. My thoughts are that, given her advocacy for state's rights and soviernty and conservative minimal federal government, she may feel this is something that is up to the state to do if they choose and how they distribute the extra revenue among that state's citizens is up to them. It is noteworthy to point out that many governors, though they may impliment certian things with in their own state, still feel that those very things they impliment in their own state are only state issues and don't feel they belong at the federal level.
On the issue of drilling in alaska in general. My thoughts are well known on this here by now I think. It's Alaska's land, Alaska can do what they see fit with it and neither the federal government nor any other state has the right to tell them otherwise.
2 people like this

@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
14 Sep 08
I was aware of Obama's support for the national level. I think all are the biggest form of corporate distruction that I have ever seen. Ugh I believe either at a state or federal level both will discourage oil exploration and drilling. Why drill and process when the companies are being taxed right out of business. I'm so excited I actually get to use my useless degree lol. The oil companies are being punished because they are providing one of the most sought after product produced. This will only continue to make the US depended on oil from countries that could or could not be terrorist countries. It would in fact cause companies to move operations elsewhere if they are not able to make a profit here. Compaines are in business to make money and if it is not worth it they will move or go out of business. It's almost like biting the hand that feeds you. Are we now encourging the oil companies to move jobs overseas and/or to Canada? I don't know how far Alberta is from Alaska but that would be a heck of a commute. This would be one of those issues that I believe if left up to the state would cause more harm than good. Would you rather collect some tax or no tax? If BP gets pissed off because they are paying more in taxes then they are making they will just move out of the state and/or country taking with them how many jobs and how many tax dollars?
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
15 Sep 08
X,
ummm I'm leaving that one up to you, she doesn't listen to me.

@limcyjain (3516)
• India
15 Sep 08
Oil is one commodity where the demand for the product is not directly corelated to its price so even if the govt charges high taxes the demand remains largely uneffected. This makes it an easy way to generate revenue for the govt. Here in india to there are heavy taxes levied not only by the central govt but also by state govt's. I feel that one of the reasons of discouraging oil companies to take up drilling work and producing oil could be an attempt to save the reserves for the bad times as the reserves around the world are limited and demand is high
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
15 Sep 08
That sounds like it would be a really good conclusion. It really makes a lot of sense to me, thank you for pointing that out.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Sep 08
I waited for awhile before responding to this one because I didn't want to come off looking like a dufus...lol! What you've said here makes a lot of sense and it really confuses me - Sarah Palin is obviously as conservative as they get yet she's boasted about raising taxes on oil profits in Alaska and giving some of it back to the people and all the Republicans cheered. Not so long ago Obama proposed a similar idea for the rest of the country but he was met with jeers. Obviously, they both can't be right, right?
I admit it irritates me to no end to read of these huge profits earned by big oil while the average person can't keep their car filled with gas to do the things they have to do, forget about "pleasure trips". When I read or hear of one of their CEO's getting millions in bonuses it really sets me off. I think the most important thing we have to do, and we have to start immediately because it should have been done decades ago is work to find alternative forms of energy so we can get off oil dependence almost totally. I say "almost" because I'm sure we'll never get to where we won't use any but we must cut it down drastically and we can do it! You and I are in agreement about increasing the number of nuclear power plants and I sincerely hope we never get someone in power who will really try to build 30 new ones! Seeing those cooling towers that look like they're in my front yard gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Annie
@gitfiddleplayer (10362)
• United States
14 Sep 08
Interesting information. I think we should drill here and break our ties with foreign oil. We can explore alternative energy sources but if the government controls those resources then its a have and have not situation. I think that every state should have their own rights to oil if its under their feet.
1 person likes this

@gitfiddleplayer (10362)
• United States
14 Sep 08
That's why oil companies haven't built a refinery in 30 years. The government wants to tax the heck out them for profits so they can waste the money on programs that don't work.
1 person likes this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
14 Sep 08
Care to explain why an oil company would in fact drill here when they are not given an incentive? They are in fact being overly taxed so that they do not even want to expand oil production because they are paying more in taxes than they are making in profits. It appears after reading this article that no oil company in their right mind would drill in Alaska because their profits would go to the state making it a lose lose situation.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
14 Sep 08
Git, you make it sound like these companies would care about the United States, or the American people. THEY DON'T. These are multi-national companies who only worry about their profits. I am personally in the oil business, and I have talked to representatives from one of the major oil compaines, they have been told that they are investing more money into alternative energy than drilling. They have done the research, they know the numbers, they see that we can't drill our way out of this, the numbers just don't work. Unless you want the United States government to get into the oil business, the big oil companies are going to drill our land and send that oil to place that pays them the most, and that is how business is. We will never be able to get all of the oil we need from our own land, that is a fact that every energy company knows. We can't break ties with foreign oil, we will need them to supply us the oil that we can't produce. I do feel that we need to drill, but the oil companies are not to do what you think they will, the only way we could do what you want them to do is to privatize the land, and open up a federal oil drilling company, and refinery. And, that isn't going to happen, ever.

@liscampll (124)
• United States
14 Sep 08
I think the only solution to the oil problem is to rely less on it. If we could enact even part of the Picken's plan, it would be great. While I'm not against off-shore drilling, I don't think it's the answer. The oil companies would own the oil coming out of the ground. The don't have to sell it to the US. We would be bidding against China, India, etc. for our own oil. While the extra income tax paid by the oil companies would be good for our economy, it doesn't free us from oil. In my opinion, we need an "all hands on deck" approach. We need wind, solar, natural gas, nuclear, renewables, etc.
More money needs to be set aside for research and development. The impact would be huge. There would be hundreds of thousands of "green collar" jobs available. The initial cost would be astronomical, but the amount of money we would save on oil would offset the cost within our lifetime.
2 people like this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
14 Sep 08
I agree mostly with your comment. The part about Picken's solution is that it brings in eminent domain if needed and my city has used eminent domain twice in the last decade and it has been horrible. Many people lost their homes for below market value. These were elderly people that had lived in their homes for years. If there was not that clause in his project I would be in full agreement with his plan. And yes we do need to explore all alternatives and fully fund the projects.
1 person likes this
@liscampll (124)
• United States
15 Sep 08
Yeah I agree, eminent domain is awful. They never pay what the property is worth.
1 person likes this
@carmela0210 (1591)
• Philippines
15 Sep 08
this one is difinitely an issue, especially here in our country, that oil raise its prices as hell, and its really giving the people here a lots of headache, good thing there's this such as bicycle, it was really a great help cause people here tend to use bicycle to save money, and of course as a part of healthy living by using it as an exercise.
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
15 Sep 08
All very true, I didn't look at the health aspect of it.







