Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sarah Palin leaving Alaska for Arizona?

+1.

Well, golly gee, you forgot to fill in your list.
Here, I fixed it for you:

Palin vs. Obama Gas War

Posted on March 16 2011 - 10:00 AM - Posted by: Whitney Pitcher

One of Governor Palin�s key pieces of legislation�Alaska�s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), legislation outlining a tax structure for oil companies� has come under attack from Alaskan politicians, oil companies, and the press as a means of undermining Governor Palin�s gubernatorial legacy.

(Also under attack by several Campfire posters from Alaska�)

Over a series of posts, we will highlight the foundation and principles on which ACES was developed, the success in oil development the legislation brought, and the players involved in attacking the Governor Palin�s cornerstone pieces of legislation. The first post in this series, which discussed the anti-corruption, pro-growth principles that molded the legislation and the transparent process in which is was passed, can be found here. This second post in the series will highlight the success of ACES since its passage more than three years ago

With the signing of this bill, we can turn the page and look forward to a new era of stability and investment opportunities developing Alaska�s resources, creating new jobs and a strong economy for years to come.
-Governor Palin upon signing ACES into law

More than three years following the passage of this bill, Governor Palin�s assertions regarding ACES have come to fruition. ACES has created a stable environment for investment and development of oil and has provided a boost to Alaskan jobs and the economy, while concurrently boosting state revenue. In short, ACES has been a success.
In the year following the passage of ACES, the number of oil wells in Alaska increased, indicating that ACES created a favorable environment for development. From the year prior to the passage of ACES to 2009, capital investment on the North Slope increased 33% to $2.2 billion, indicating that oil companies are making investments in future development. More recently, a poll of petroleum executives indicated that a greater percentage of executives thought that ACES �promoted investment� than 2/3 of the 24 other states who were included in the survey. Earlier this month, a Spanish oil company, Repsol, announced that it would be devoting more than three-quarters of a billion dollars to North Slope exploration.

ACES has been beneficial to oil companies of all shapes and sizes. In fact, since the passage of ACES, the number of oil companies filing tax returns with the state of Alaska has doubled indicating that more and more companies are seeking to develop in the state. Actually, Alaska has the second most favorable business tax climate in the country, moving up two spots since the passage of ACES. In fact, since 2006, the state of Alaska has given $3 billion in investment incentivizing tax breaks to oil companies. ACES taxes net profits rather than gross revenues (like Governor Murkowski�s oil tax structure) and offers tax credits to oil companies, which yielded high profits for large oil companies like ConocoPhillips and high praise from smaller oil companies. In fact in the year following the passage of ACES, ConocoPhillips Alaskan oil production accounted for 29% of its worldwide income despite only accounting for only 12% of its output. The flexibility of ACES� taxation mechanism in conjunction with changes in oil prices has proven to be beneficial to ConnocoPhillips as well. When oil prices dropped in 2009, their Alaskan profit�s percentage was higher than 2008 when oil prices were high, ranging from 35-55% of their total profits in the first three quarters of 2009. Additionally, Former Republican Alaskan legislator, Ray Metcalfe, highlighted that ACES provides a much lower risk for development and 10 times the profit per barrel for oil companies in Alaska compared to oil rich Iraq. Current Alaska state senator Bill Wielechowski spoke to Bob and Mark in February about how ACES has benefited both oil companies and the state of Alaska (H/T Kelsey)

In addition to the benefits ACES provides oil companies, ACES has proven beneficial to the people of Alaska�both in the way of jobs and state revenue. After all, the compass that guided Governor Palin in this effort was the Alaska constitution, which stated that resource development must be done for the maximum benefit of the people. Oil jobs have increased since the passage of ACES with 2009 bringing a record high number of oil jobs. Additionally, even in spite of the economic recession in recent years, Alaska�s job market, with 1/3 of jobs related to the oil industry, has remained strong. Alaska�s unemployment numbers have remained lower than the national average since 2009. Alaska�s economy ACES has also generated more revenue for the state since its passage than the previous two oil structures would have under current oil prices and production. Such revenue helped allowed Governor Palin to put $5 billion in state savings and forward fund education while she was governor. Additionally,a portion of oil revenues provide Alaskans, as resource owners, with a permanent fund dividend, which is essentially akin to stockholders receiving their share of a company�s profits.
When Governor Palin signed ACES into law, she asserted that this legislation would provide stability, spur investment and development, strengthen the economy, and create jobs.
By all accounts, Governor Palin�s assertions ring true, and her detractors must eat crow once again.

By golly you Ozarkians have sure smartened up since I grew up in an adjoining state. You now seem able to divine "truth" and "fact" about events nearly a continent away from you based on a single article written by that paragon of truth and knowledge Whitney Pitcher of Conservatives4Palin. Wow! Certainly an unquestionable source of objectivity!

But I do recall that many of you Ozarkians could divine "truth" even way back when I was growing up - dancing around "speaking in tongues" and doing the hokey pokey with rattlesnakes seemed convincing methods of "divining" truth when I was a kid. Your methods are more electronically sophisticated now - but no more effective.

So, ACES is Sarah's big resource development idea? Her lasting legacy that provides her resource development policy credentials? The basis on which she'd guide the nation's energy policy?

Where to start...

Well, let's see. I live in Alaska, I don't just fantasize about it. I know the state resource managers and the lawyers who actually drafted the legislation that became ACES. I know the legislators responsible for amending and passing it. I know how and why ACES was enacted into law.

For those of you out-of-staters the key legislators supporting and getting ACES passed were Democrats. A very conservative Republican (who Sarah Palin HATED) was President of the Alaska State Senate in a coalition with Democrats. She, the Senate Presicent, and they (the Democrats) controlled whether and in what form ACES would be passed. Sarah would have had NO oil tax legislation without their work. Sarah would have been able to do NOTHING without them.

Sarah was handed ACES by a resource development team made up of seasoned public servants - people who worked in government for 30 years and more through Republican and Democratic administrations. People who were there because of what they knew not their politics. People who served the PUBLIC INTEREST not a particular political agenda. They were, because of the political climate of the time, handed an opportunity to get something done in the interest of Alaskan's rather than in the interest of oil companies exploiting Alaska. A very rare opportunity, indeed!

ACES passed ONLY because of the work of the Democrats and because of the public outrage resulting from two factors:
1. The corruption trials of several legislators (all Republican) who were caught on video tape by the FBI being purchased by Bill Allen, owner of oil field service company VECO, and long term shill of the big oil companies (BP, Conoco-Phillips, Shell, Exxon-Mobil, etc.).

2. The efforts of Sarah's immediate predecessor as governor, Frank Murkowski, who had managed to alienate virtually the entire population of Alaska in just four short years (after a 20 year career in the US Senate), most recently and particularly, as a result of his last ham-handed effort at secretly negotiating and signing giveaway contracts with oil companies that gave them everything they wanted without ANY legislative or other oversight or accountability to Alaska's citizens.

Sarah was, in fact, elected ONLY because she was able to "appear" as the antithesis of Frank Murkowski. ACES was legislation conceptualized by resource managers, who had resigned under Murkowski's administration, but who were brought back by Sarah to help cement her "anti-corruption" posture. She had no idea what ACES was really about except that it was NOT what Frank Murkowski had done. Democrats in the state Senate were the ones who made ACES happen.

The oil companies hated ACES. They still hate ACES and are doing everything they can to repeal it. They don't want the "stable environment of ACES". They want the "stable environment" they had before when they had a higher profit margin. Why? Because, they say, ACES is a DISINCENTIVE for them to explore and develop oil and gas resources in Alaska. They want it repealed so they can "reinvest" the profits they gain (by reducing, by billions, the amount the citizens of Alaska get in return for allowing oil companies to pump and sell oil that Alaskan's own.)

Sarah's Lt. Governor, the guy she installed when she resigned halfway through her term, has introduced a bill to repeal ACES. Why? Because he says it serves as a disincentive to development of Alaska's oil and gas resources. He says (and the oil companies say) that they can't explore as much as they want to because of the high cost of doing exploratory and development work in Alaska since ACES was passed. They need a different "stable environment" - one that gives them a higher profit margin for their "good will" and "intention" to "reinvest" their windfall in new exploration and development. Of course, they can't actually commit to reinvesting anything or any legal provisions that would HOLD them to any actions. Private corporations accountable to shareholders, lack of future certainty of return on investment, etc., etc. Just give us the money and we'll see what we can do.

If Sarah Palin were governor of Alaska today she would NEVER propose or support ACES. Her positions since being selected as McCain's vice presidential candidate are a near 180 degrees from the positions she held in her first year as governor of Alaska. Her "energy policies" now consist of:

"Drill, baby, drill!" And, the opposite of what Obama or any other Democrat would support. That's it! Got any other examples of her "policies"?

How about AGIA - the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act? Every hear of that? It was Sarah's other centerpiece legislative achievement. It's related to resource development. It gives half a billion of Alaska's dollars to Trans-Canada (a Canadian pipeline company) to "develop" a gas pipeline in order to get Alaska's trillions of cubic feet of known gas reserves to market. It doesn't actually require a pipeline be built. The money isn't for actually building anything. It's for their "efforts" to "plan" and permit a pipeline and get commitments from the oil companies who HAVE access to the gas to use the pipeline to ship it.

How's that AGIA working for ya? You Ozarkians seen any Alaska gas yet? Neither have we Alaskans. Any clue why? Because they can't get commitments from the oil companies who hold the leases to actually begin extracting the gas they KNOW and have known for 40 years is there (including what they flare off every day).

What's Sarah's next idea to get the oil companies to commit and start shipping that gas as quickly as possible? Heard anything lately?

Let me tell you what they would be: tax "incentives" and other giveaways to oil companies direct from the oil company playbook. Sarah would now support exactly what the oil companies want - she'd now be supporting policies exactly the opposite of ACES.

Why? Because she's now a "conservative" and that's what "conservatives" advocate. It's the Fox/Hooter's News position. It's the oil company and big corporation position. It's doctrine.

Sarah has no policies or ideas other than those that will get Sarah more public attention and increase her ability to milk $$$$$ from the ignorant worshippers who confuse a sound-bite for an idea, which apparently includes you. Sarah fits perfectly on Hooter's News. She is the quintessential empty suit (or tank top).

I pity you poor folks who can't see through her style over substance. But since you can't, why don't you get together an event and hire Sarah and Joe Miller (another failed Alaskan nutjob who has recently signed with the "speakers bureau" that handles Sarah and G.W. Bush) to come and take your hard-earned dollars for gracing a stage near you and giving you more "enlightenment"?

Please, PLEASE, spend your money supporting them both!

And, invite them both to move permanently to Arkansas. I can assure you that they'd do it...for enough money.

Oh, by the way, you and little Whitney Pitcher should be aware that Sarah hates former Republican legislator Ray Metcalfe and espouses policies that are diametrically opposed to those of current Democratic state Senator Bill Wielechowski. That should tell you where Sarah's policies would stand today on ACES. They support it. She'd oppose it.

I for one don't like Palin and most if not all of you guys know that. However she probably talked to John McCain, that is a transplant to AZ himself, and he probably told her if she wants a Senate seat, move to AZ. He then probably told her to stay in the senate for a term and don't quit and then make a run for the Presidency.
Many forget McCain was a transplant that moved to AZ to get elected to the House. He picked a good district and won. The Clintons moved to NY for the same reason because they found a place that lady could win a senate seat.
I see Palin being a senator and stands a very good chance of winning the senate compared to the other republicans who have expressed interest. I know in this case, I would vote for her and I don't like her. She would have majority support from most that share her views. She will struggle in Dem counties like Pima, but with the majority of Maricopa county and Pinal supporting her, she'll win anyway.

Either way it will be a good move for her and her wallet. AZ is a nice place. Hope she does cuz I would hate for Jon Kyl's seat to go dem for 6 years.

Kique

Like I posted before��Florida makes more sense to me.

By M. JOSEPH SHEPPARD'S "A POINT OF VIEW" on March 16, 2011
There has been media speculation that Palin is looking to base her campaign, should it eventuate, in Arizona.
This has an appeal for her given family considerations with her daughter Bristol and her grandchild having recently moved there but for two reasons it is not the best option.

Firstly there is the memory of Palin�s being unfairly pilloried by the media for her supposed connection with the Gifford�s tragedy and the subsequent further attacks on her for her, entirely justified, defense when she commented on the shootings.
Being true to form the media, and of course the Dem�s, would constantly harp on Palin being based in Arizona as a supposed indication of her �insensitivity�.
A sad, but inescapable, and frankly to be avoided, harsh reality.

Secondly in purely Electoral College practicalities if by being based in the South-West the aim is to shore up that area then it seems a sub-optimal option.
If, by the time the polls had closed in Arizona, Florida had been lost, then winning the states of Colorado and Arizona would be meaningless.
It would be understandable that the thinking might be that being based in Arizona would make travel to Alaska easier than from Florida, but for winning the election it would also be meaningless.

It is no mystery as to why the Dem�s are holding their convention in North Carolina and the Republicans in Florida.
Those states, plus Virginia and Ohio are the winning or losing (Ohio/Florida definitely, Virginia/North Carolina probably) of the 2012 election.
For Palin, if based in Florida, they can all be readily visited on as many occasions as needed to win them-to be based so far away in Arizona might be to give away the election.

I told all of you num nuts that no one up here but a select few can stand Palin and good old Joe. Yesterdays News boys!

Don't pay any attention to BrownDog[AK_Chessie] .He had to change his user name because he was outed as a Democrat politician and who also got his ass kicked by Sarah Palin.LOL.

My father debated him and decimated his pathetic jealous rant about Mrs. Palin.

There's not much worse than a Dem politician.

This is where my father's debate with this moron[BrownDog,aka AK_Chessie] begins.I had a good laugh reading my father's [sportingspecialist] beat down of this failed Demonrat politician.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3791141/13

Hey, shouldn't you be licking hugo chavezs nuts for a little heating oil?

Damn Dog! Well put!

lmao, he got his azz kicked on the debate that a poster so generously provided for our recollection and now he comes back to take more of an azz beating.

I love guys that love to get their azz beat, they're so much fun.

as to the ACES argument Brown Dog and Walt ain't the only ones that live here, they're just some of the stupid ones that share this area code.

you boys want to tell us how much oil is flowing thru the pipeline these days compared to several years ago?

care to cite the number of exploratory wells on the Slope currently?

care to tell us how the Fed gov't is going to keep spending money (they don't have) up here on the largest welfare state in the nation? especially with Uncle Ted pushing up daisies?

care to cite the difference in taxation and thus profitability (yes there's that evil word profit, though I attached a suffix to throw you off the scent) between what the oil companies make off a barrel of oil here vs. North Dakota?

or do you just want to continue to lie out yer azzes?

At least Whitney Pitcher didn�t leave the page blank like you did.
Glad I could fix your major boo-boo.
No thanks is necessary.
Hope you made it all the way thru the Sarah article to the last line before your lips got tired and your fingertip got sore.

What does crow taste like, anyways?

And while you�re at it, please tell me how I can �intice� Sarah to the Ozarks?

I would love to do that�but my dictionary can�t find your word.


Posted by: Whitney Pitcher
Governor Palin�s political career has been marked by a consistent efforts to rid Alaska of corruption, remove pervasive crony capitalism, and make government more transparent. Her proposal of Alaska�s Clear and Equitable Share is an excellent example of her reaching all three aims. Under her predecessor, Governor Murkowski, the Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT), a oil tax scheme, was implemented. PPT taxed oil companies 22.5% of their net profits, compared to the 10% tax on gross revenues that was previously in place. A tax on net profits was intended to encourage development and production. However, this legislation had two major problems: corruption and failure to both bring in sufficient revenue and increase development.

The passage of PPT in September of 2006 was later found to be marred by extortion, bribery, and conspiracy. Three state legislators were indicted in May of 2007. Two of these individuals were later convicted and sentenced (one is still being dealt with in the courts) on corruption charges for their improper dealings with the oilfield company, VECO, in passing PPT. Governor Murkowski�s chief of staff, Jim Clark, also later plead guilty to conspiracy for hiding campaign contributions to Murkowski�s campaign from VECO. Prosecutors charged that that Clark used his position to push for the tax rate preferred by VECO�PPT. Suffice it to say, PPT�s passage was tainted, which contributed to the Palin administration�s reasons for re-visiting this tax structure. Additionally, Governor Palin tasked the Alaska Department of Revenue with evaluating PPT�s generation of revenue and industry reinvestment. This report found that revenues were lower than anticipated (to the tune of $800 million lower), operational and capital costs were higher, and tax credits were not effectively spurring production and development.
Following this report, Governor Palin introduced a new tax structure that not only addressed the problems of the PPT, but also had its foundation in the Alaska state constitution, which states that resources must be developed for the maximum benefit of the people of Alaska:
The new plan, called Alaska�s Clear and Equitable Share, or ACES, is a hybrid of a gross and net tax system. It includes a minimum 10 percent tax based on gross receipts for the North Slope�s legacy fields with a 25 percent net tax to encourage new development and reinvestment in existing infrastructure. ACES also allows for tax credits on future work. It restricts capital expense deductions to scheduled maintenance and implements strong audit and information sharing provisions.

As James P. Lucier described in the Wall Street Journal, Governor Palin�s plan accounted for fluctuation in oil prices and provided incentive for development:
As a new governor in 2007, Mrs. Palin stepped in to address the fiscal crisis and restore accountability. Working with Democrats and Republicans alike, she chose a 25% profits tax. But in lean years the state reverts to a 10% gross revenue tax on legacy fields that do not require massive continuing inputs of new capital.
Relative to the old system, Mrs. Palin�s plan � called �Alaska�s Clear and Equitable Share� (ACES) � improves incentives for developing new resources. It ensures the state does well in boom times � as it is doing now � when oil prices are high. But it also hedges against low prices in the future by ensuring that oil companies exposed to commodity price swings don�t face a crushing tax burden when commodity prices fall.
Her plan includes an escalator clause that gives the state a larger share of revenues when oil prices rise. This is common to production-sharing agreements all over the world.

Governor Palin released a draft of the bill 17 days before the Special Session to enable both the legislature and the public to read the proposal prior to its discussion in the legislature. Her oil and gas team also held a series of briefings throughout the state prior to its discussion in the Special Session to allow the people of Alaska to be informed about the proposal. The bill was passed very easily in both the House and the Senate with bipartisan support before Governor Palin signed it in December of 2007. In signing this bill, Governor Palin removed the taint of corruption from taxation negotiation process and submitted a strong piece of legislation ensuring that the people of Alaska received their �clear and equitable share� as shareholders in the resources of the state.
One common misconception regarding this piece of legislation is that it is a windfall profits tax that hurts industry. In reality, such a tax is a severance tax, and its basis is constitutional. Rob Harrison addressed the former misconception in a post in June of 2009 in which he referenced a piece characterizing Palin�s ACES legislation as a severance tax:
State severance taxes charged on production of oil and gas and minerals are common throughout the United States. Also sometimes called �production taxes,� they�re charged by the state from beneath whose land valuable resources are extracted, and they�re designed not to punish the energy companies, but to recompense the state for its loss of a non-replaceable resource � one that must be quantified and taxed upon removal, if it is ever to be taxed at all. Severance taxes are therefore based on production from within the state, not on profits earned by the company extracting that production � even though the production may be measured in, and the tax assessed upon, the market value or gross revenues (as measured in dollars) received for that production, rather than an �in kind� delivery to the state in barrels or cubic feet as such. See, e.g., Tex. Tax Code �� 201.051 & 202.051 (Texas production taxes on gas and oil respectively)
It is not a windfall tax, as championed by liberals to capture even greater revenue during periods of larger profits. Instead, it is a tax that is levied on production and the loss of a resource. The state revenues generated by ACES , just as its name states ensure Alaskans receive their �clear and equitable share�.

More than three years later, why does this matter? It matters because Governor Palin�s record continues to be either ignored, misrepresented, or attacked. Governor Palin�s record is based on transparency and integrity, and she ensured that her administration did what was best for the people of the Alaska. When ACES was passed, it wasn�t a result of undue influence from oil companies, but it wasn�t a punitive tax aimed at the oil companies either. It was done in such a way that the people of Alaska received optimum benefits and the oil industry was encouraged to produce and develop. It has achieved those goals. Stay tuned for discussion of the success of ACES in boosting state revenue while increasing development, growing oil jobs, and allowing for a good business environment for both small and large oil companies

Send me some of yours!

Really? Goodness you do think you know a lot, don't you? A failed politician? Really? Nope, never been a politician - failed or otherwise.

But, yep, the nut doesn't fall far from the tree. You "decimate" others posts just like your father - with unsupported opinion and drivel. Gosh that's an impressive "beat down" that "won" a debate. So you and your father love and drool over Sarah. So what?

Why not contribute your own two cents worth of Palin-mania? Put something on the line with some facts?

Got any? What do YOU know? About ACES? AGIA? Anything explaining sister Sarah's energy policy credentials? Or, why you think Alaskans wouldn't (or shouldn't) cheer themselves hoarse if she left for Arizona or Arkansas or anywhere else. With a very few exceptions Alaskans would be overjoyed to see Sarah's sideshow move on.

Sarah is nothing to Alaska but a distraction. No, I'm wrong, she's actually a minor detriment too - portraying "her" Alaska to an unsuspecting audience of Lower 48 worshippers. You know "her" Alaska - the one that functions like a tourist trap where she "participates" in all those fully guided Alaskany activities she's never done before in all those Alaskan locations she's never been before while all made up for the benefit of all those worshipful TV viewers. Well, it did seem to all be filmed in Alaska, I'll give her that.

Let's hear some of YOUR fact-based perspective. Or do you need your father (or maybe your Mommy) to write one for you?

Drool on little guy.

Brown Dog, I like your style. Keep it coming.---Spano

Pull your head out of your Ar$$, clean the Shi% out of your eyes and look around. You will find that very few people back your position. Yesterdays News!

Talking about people pulling they head out of their ass look in the mirror oh you can't see the mirror with your head up your ass.

No, not in my lifetime.
Didn't ya save any money from them no-bid contracts?

Hey, maybe you can ask the UN for help

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2011/03/01/opinion/editorials/doc4d6c993ea3aa1789872718.txt

lmao Walt

you're too easy

that's your response to the questions I posed?



I'm not particularly interested in how many people "back my position"

I make my position based on facts, not emotion.

Fact 1. it was a majority that elected our current prez (though I wasn't crazy about the alternative, sucks less does indeed suck less)

Fact 2. odds are the majority of us posting here from Alaska couldn't afford to be here without the oil that's flowed thru that pipeline, all done by those BIG, EVIL corps. that folks like you and Brown Dog rail against

Fact 3. we're an extraction economy, yep, oil, gas, ore, coal, timber, fish etc. all the things you liberals so detest, we're not going to out manufacture the Chinese, or have a lot of big software companies headquarted here etc. if we're going to continue, we better extract

Fact 4. dumbazzes like you and Brown Dog are what's wrong with this country and this state, you cry for more and more from gov't like spoiled children that want a free lunch, welcome to the free world....the lunch ain't free

Fact 5. largely due to the Democrats Brown Dog and you praise our state spends over a billion dollars per annum to service 700K people, all brought on by the riches provided by the oil that the oil companies bring to market. But your gratitude is "kill the golden goose that lays the eggs, that bitch has to give more"

When you're right you are right on!

How convenient you forgot that you admitted you were a politico.

It's abundantly clear that you were a Demonrat politico so by definition you are a failure.

All of your posts are dripping with envy over Sarah's success and popularity and your anonymity as a failed politico.

Why did you change your user name from AK_Chessie to BrownDog?

Was it to hide from the fact that you got your ass waxed in this debate.LOL.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3791141/12


Shouldn't you be taking a nap old man.We don't want you to get too tired,especially at your advanced age.Maybe you should call your boyfriend to come and wipe the drool from you chin.LOL.