Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $22,833
25%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 25% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Al B.

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • To Remove ObamaCare We Must First Remove The UniParty “Big Club”…

    03/25/2017 3:09:58 PM PDT · 34 of 48
    Al B. to bicyclerepair
    Good question. Maybe President Trump can provide an answer. He supported Ryancare.

    I happily voted for Trump but I don't understand why he signed on to this approach that the congressional Republicans were pushing.

    Maybe it will become clearer.

  • To Remove ObamaCare We Must First Remove The UniParty “Big Club”…

    03/25/2017 2:52:04 PM PDT · 30 of 48
    Al B. to dfwgator
    It’s a big club and you ain’t in it. - George Carlin

    "If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu." -- Sarah Palin

  • “Freeper Jeff Head’s Cancer now diagnosed as Terminal”

    11/04/2016 3:43:39 PM PDT · 415 of 434
    Al B. to Jeff Head

    Heartbreaking news, Jeff. Love and prayers for you and your family. God bless you.

  • Paris Muslims complain of ostracism after terror attacks

    11/20/2015 5:26:43 PM PST · 111 of 125
    Al B. to Jeff Head

    Thanks, Jeff. Blessings to you and your family.

  • Why Sarah Palin Takes American Sniper Criticism Personally

    01/21/2015 3:58:58 PM PST · 27 of 44
    Al B. to MountainDad

    God bless your son. Can’t wait to see “American Sniper” (this weekend).

  • How freepers see elections/ebola/deflation/terror affecting investments&economy --Weekly Thread

    10/26/2014 2:42:47 PM PDT · 10 of 81
    Al B. to abb

    Those are Fri. closing PM numbers. Futures market opens in about 15 min.

  • Navy’s Next Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier to be Named Enterprise

    07/10/2013 5:47:10 PM PDT · 35 of 45
    Al B. to re_tail20; Jeff Head; HalfFull
  • HMS Queen Elizabeth to be structurally complete this year

    07/04/2013 7:09:09 PM PDT · 11 of 25
    Al B. to ThunderSleeps
    The overhead gantry crane at Newport News, largest in North America, has a 900-ton capacity. Carriers are constructed as modules weighing less than that and lifted into place in the building dock.

    Here's the video of the island lift for CVN-78, Gerald Ford, earlier this year:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yo9bEKxKsk

    As you may notice, the island is a completely new design from the Nimitz-class ships and sits farther aft.

  • Anti-Muslim Brotherhood Protests in Egypt: Largest Political Event in World History

    06/30/2013 7:20:33 PM PDT · 10 of 60
    Al B. to lurk
    Will DC notice?

    No. McCain was asked about it this AM on Fox and basically said forget Egypt, Syria and arming the rebels there is the priority. He's all hot for another Libya in Syria.

    The real reform movement in Egypt is SOL as far as any support from DC is concerned.

  • K Street Republicans’ war on Palin

    08/09/2012 5:00:24 PM PDT · 38 of 41
    Al B. to Timber Rattler; sarah fan UK; hrh40

    Thanks for the ping.

  • Prayers please .. for Onyx's grandson

    06/16/2012 10:20:52 AM PDT · 185 of 429
    Al B. to STARWISE; onyx

    Prayers for a speedy recovery for your grandson and his dad, onyx. Best to you,

  • On to the floor: Senate Finance moves production tax, SB 192 {Alaska}

    04/16/2012 3:06:09 PM PDT · 17 of 18
    Al B. to Al B.

    “may soon get” should read “may soon give back”

  • On to the floor: Senate Finance moves production tax, SB 192 {Alaska}

    04/16/2012 2:47:26 PM PDT · 16 of 18
    Al B. to thackney
    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.

    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.

  • On to the floor: Senate Finance moves production tax, SB 192 {Alaska}

    04/14/2012 11:50:36 AM PDT · 14 of 18
    Al B. to thackney
    I'm responding now because nobody else chimed in.

    It doesn't matter what the tax penalty is? The companies should just be happy to pay it and go on?

    I didn't say that. I'll say my words. You say yours. OK? I said that lack of investment in Alaska has been going on far longer than ACES has been on the scene, covering all 3 tax systems. That is a fact. I've further stated that capital investments are up modestly in Alaska under ACES. That, too, is a fact. I've also stated that CP's profitability in Alaska has been strong under no matter what the tax system is. That is also a fact.

    You, OTOH, continue to pin all the problems on ACES and Palin. You've been making that case for a long time. You've also asserted, as you did yesterday, that 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.

    As for the 48%, I disagreed with it and pointed to CP's effective Alaska tax rate of 31.2% in 2011 on an avg. price of $105.95. I realize that doesn't include royalties to the state. That's kinda murky from my research. The AK Dept. of Revenue says that the majority of fields are charged at a 12.5% rate but then says that only a fraction of the oil is charged royalties. They further compound the problem by lumping oil royalties in with rents in their revenue summary. I don't know how to figure that all out. Do you?

    Amanda Coyne, who you dismiss (BTW she hates Palin, too), calculates the total AK take, including royalties, at 39%. From looking at the ACES effective tax rate curve at $100 oil, it looks like she just added the 12.5% average royalty number to the ACES effective rate at $100 to come up with the 39% total take number as compared to ND's 33%. Whether she's precisely right or not on royalties, that's a far more real comparison of the actual competitive situation between AK and ND than you or the oil companies have been making to Alaskans. And yes, obviously there are other factors involved than taxes, possibly disadvantageous to Alaska

    As for your overall remarks in the post I'm responding to, everybody understands that production is declining up there and nobody likes taxes. I know I don't. That said, I hope you agree that Alaska deserves a return on their state-owned resources that would continue to help wean them off federal dollars.

    The oil companies want a $10B tax giveback in return for a guarantee of...nothing. They've talked about a $5B investment in return for the $10B but I've seen nothing from them that they would agree to put that number in the bill as a guarantee. Put it in the bill and you might be surprised at my reaction. Don't hold your breath waiting for that guarantee to happen. Their attitude is, show me the money and we'll do good things. If Alaskans want to buy into that again, good luck to them.

    In terms of honest discussion, I'd like to hear further from the oil companies on what the $5B would go for, if they're willing to guarantee that investment (they aren't). For instance, some have said that taking TAPS back north of 1,000,000 barrels/day would require a major $ investment to upgrade the aging equipment. Is this true? If it is, I don't know why they're not making that case more vigorously. I think that would make their case stronger that Alaskans need to contribute to that. The bottom line, though, is the question of just how is the industry going to increase the flow of oil. If they're going to hit up Alaskans while pumping federally-owned oil through the pipeline (say ANWR), I say screw that. Hit up the feds for the money. They're the real problem in Alaska, anyway.

  • On to the floor: Senate Finance moves production tax, SB 192 {Alaska}

    04/14/2012 6:15:22 AM PDT · 9 of 18
    Al B. to thackney
    An honest discussion would go to why the oil companies aren't investing in Alaska no matter what the tax system is, as my analysis of 9 years of ConocoPhillips Alaska financials clearly shows. They've been pocketing large profits under all 3 tax schemes even though their capital investment is up modestly under ACES.

    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.

    http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/936617849.shtml

  • On to the floor: Senate Finance moves production tax, SB 192 {Alaska}

    04/14/2012 5:22:09 AM PDT · 7 of 18
    Al B. to Al B.

    Correction, Kristen Nelson not Kay Cashman. Same thing. They’re partners in reporting this stuff.

  • On to the floor: Senate Finance moves production tax, SB 192 {Alaska}

    04/14/2012 5:20:02 AM PDT · 6 of 18
    Al B. to thackney
    Based on the comments I saw in your post, it looks like the difference between Parnell/AK House and the Senate may be large enough to require some bit of time looking into the differences before a Special Session would actually be called.

    Again not to be argumentative, but I can't resist one comment from your article posted here by Kay Cashman (who I pay a lot of attention to):

    Referring to a slide benchmarking Alaska tax rates against other fiscal regimes, he said what PFC has said is at $100 per barrel ranges, government take under ACES is in the mid-70 percent, [emphasis mine] “and that is very, very high by OECD standards, second only to Norway and certainly in particular much higher than the levels of government take we see elsewhere in the Lower 48 which are the places in particular Alaska at the moment is competing with for investment capital.”

    Too bad Mayer doesn't break that down. You and I both know ACES is only one component of that assuming the 70% is even true, which I doubt. Mayer certainly wanted to leave the impression that it was only because of ACES, which is disingenuous. Another example of why Alaskans aren't getting an honest discussion of the problems up there.

  • On to the floor: Senate Finance moves production tax, SB 192 {Alaska}

    04/14/2012 4:46:19 AM PDT · 4 of 18
    Al B. to thackney
    Thanks. I'll refrain from arguing for now but as I mentioned yesterday, SB 192 was currently deadlocked in the Alaska Senate:

    Senate deadlocked over oil tax rewrite

    "The oil tax bill, SB192, was pulled from the Senate's floor calendar Thursday after it failed to garner the votes needed from within the bipartisan caucus."

    This is a far more modest bill than Parnell and the Big 3 want (they want to gut ACES as you well know), and even this bill is totally deadlocked. Maybe it will get off the snide before tomorrow night, but it's looking iffy.

  • Exclusive Interview: Palin Talks Pain at the Pump Ahead of Fox News Special

    04/13/2012 3:02:34 PM PDT · 48 of 50
    Al B. to thackney
    You can confuse maintenance projects with investment for future production if you want.

    CP is spending more money to produce a barrel of oil in AK than ever before. You mean they're not spending any of that in Alaska either?

  • Exclusive Interview: Palin Talks Pain at the Pump Ahead of Fox News Special

    04/13/2012 2:44:13 PM PDT · 47 of 50
    Al B. to thackney
    Fine, so we can't resolve AK's FY data with CP's calendar year data.

    In calendar year 2010, CP reported their AK sales price at $78.61/barrel and their taxes paid at $17.65 barrel. That's 22.5% for AK's take of CP's oil.