The state records all the money they collect. We can debate if the Royalty oil should be counted in the baseline which would lower the percentage, but I don't see how you can make that argument. I don't know why you would claim any other source would be more complete than the State for what they collect themselves.
hat the effective governmental take was 85% at current price levels. I assumed you were talking about Alaska since it dovetails on some of yours and Paul Jenkins' numbers that have floated around here, which is a crock. When you clarified your remarks, you went to a 48% number for Alaska's take. Now in this article today, you say 70+% for the total governmental take. You're a moving target.
Two points, it is a moving target because the system Alaska uses constantly changes with price. One based near $100 and one at $120 give different percentages. But both of those are not the total average, they are the incremental take at that price. That means, for each additional dollar, that percentage is taken; not of the total dollars made at that point. It shows why it can be economic to stay where they are, but not economic to try and do more.
The oil companies want a $10B tax giveback in return for a guarantee of...nothing.
Try a $1B return of the tax level. How can it be $10B when they don't pay that in total now. What did the state give in return when they raised the rate by a billion back then?
It appears enough people agree that it is too high and needs to be fixed. It will now carry out into the special session.
http://www.adn.com/2012/04/15/2424739/key-legislation-bogs-down-in-sessions.html
Once again, I've never said that royalties shouldn't be included in this debate. It does tend to confuse the issue with Alaskans, though, who are being asked to consider only taxes, not royalties. The oil companies know that Alaskans won't agree to touch royalties because then we're talking about the Permanent Fund.
In my ConocoPhillips analysis of concrete numbers, I'm forced to exclude royalties because they don't report them.
In your 48% number, you use the discounted price of oil after transportation costs. Alaska uses the ANS WC number in all their discussion and calculations about taxes, $94.49 for the time period you cite. Also, it's 4 fiscal quarters against the calendar data I'm using. I don't care that you're using that price ($87.32), but it makes it more difficult to compare Alaska's net-revenue system against gross value-based systems. It's already difficult enough with most companies operating on a calendar year.
What's the total state take including royalties in TX and LA? I haven't looked at that since I'm starting to lose interest in all this. I probably ought to, though. Might be very interesting.
Alaska seems hell-bent on another one-sided bargain with the Big 3. The Corrupt Bastards Club will soon be rejoicing. The most profitable place in the world for the oil companies and bought-and-paid-for politicians may soon get another huge chunk of $ so they can chase opportunities outside the U.S., where the FEDS have made it very unattractive to make bets despite the huge resources available.
In 2007 under Murkowski's PPT, CP paid taxes at a rate of 21.9% at $69.75/barrel. In 2010 under Palin's ACES, CP paid at a rate of 22.5% at $78.61/barrel. Yet I've never heard a peep out of you or the Big 3 complaining about PPT. That's...odd. LOLOL.