Wake me when that happens...LOL. Otherwise, good post. I'll defer to others at this point who may want to chime in.
Edit: BTW, Kay Cashman gave me the idea to really dig into the CP numbers when, in 2009, she wrote an article explaining that Alaska was a great place to make money in the oil business based on CP's outstanding performance in 1Q 2009 under ACES. I expanded her analysis to include CP's performance under all 3 tax schemes.
Really? It doesn't matter what the tax penalty is? The companies should just be happy to pay it and go on?
as my analysis of 9 years of ConocoPhillips Alaska financials clearly shows
What has the production rate done in that time period? You are comparing a time period where the major investment for the capital cost to build infrastructure was already spent and only operations and maintenance was the expense. If they are not investing dollars to replace declining production, then they don't have a long-term future.
The oil business requires significant capital investment before you get a return. Those dollars don't happen in the same year or the following.
Really? It doesn't matter what the tax penalty is? The companies should just be happy to pay it and go on?
as my analysis of 9 years of ConocoPhillips Alaska financials clearly shows
What has the production rate done in that time period? You are comparing a time period where the major investment for the capital cost to build infrastructure was already spent and mostly operations and maintenance was the expense. If they are not investing dollars to replace declining production, then they don't have a long-term future.
The oil business requires significant capital investment before you get a return. Those dollars don't happen in the same year or the following.