ANWR questions.

[techs]

OK. The US purchased Alaska from Russia. Then Alaska became a state. But the US government still owned? most of Alaska.
Anyway, the US sets up a national park/wildlife preserve called ANWR. The US owns the land it is on?
The bill to allow drilling in the ANWR charges oil companies 2.5 billion for the lease? Is that the total bill for drilling in the anwr? If they find 20 billion barrels at a profit of 30 per barrel the US still only gets that 2.5 billion? Is the US gettting a fair deal on the oil leases?
A recent change in the anwr bill says all oil from the anwr must not be exported. Does that help America in any shape or form? Isn't whatever oil found in anwr just part of the global oil market since if it stays in the US than US demand for foreign oil drops by the same amount meaning the market for oil is unchanged. And might it be more expensive to keep the oil in the US when geographically it might be easier to send it to Asia?
Does Alaska get any revenue from the oil(outside of jobs created which pay taxes)?
Does Alaska tax the oil? If so how can they do that if the oil is destined for interstate commerce?
Just some questions I have wondered about.
Anyone know?

 

[K1052]

Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation

According to their home page the Fund currently has over $32 billion in holdings.

Dividends from the fund are paid to Alaska residents.


So yes, Alaska itself sees quite a bit of oil related revenue.

 

[techs]

Wow. No one seems to really know about the issues of anwr. Despite everyones strong opinion on it.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: K1052
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation

According to their home page the Fund currently has over $32 billion in holdings.

Dividends from the fund are paid to Alaska residents.


So yes, Alaska itself sees quite a bit of oil related revenue.

Don't equate the PFD with oil revenue. That fund is made up of stocks, bonds, real estate and other investments. The PFD was started with excess oil royalties but since then the income from that fund has been diversified and sees less and less of its annual income derived from royalties. In fact, most of the oil revenues go to the state budget or budget reserve savings account at this point. The Fund is so diversified, in fact, that despite soaring oil prices the PFD payout was actaully less than last year. In fact, it has been going down for several years now and you can chart its payout by tracking the performance of the stock market.
Link
It's not an oil check...

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: techs
OK. The US purchased Alaska from Russia. Then Alaska became a state. But the US government still owned? most of Alaska.
Anyway, the US sets up a national park/wildlife preserve called ANWR. The US owns the land it is on?
The bill to allow drilling in the ANWR charges oil companies 2.5 billion for the lease? Is that the total bill for drilling in the anwr? If they find 20 billion barrels at a profit of 30 per barrel the US still only gets that 2.5 billion? Is the US gettting a fair deal on the oil leases?
A recent change in the anwr bill says all oil from the anwr must not be exported. Does that help America in any shape or form? Isn't whatever oil found in anwr just part of the global oil market since if it stays in the US than US demand for foreign oil drops by the same amount meaning the market for oil is unchanged. And might it be more expensive to keep the oil in the US when geographically it might be easier to send it to Asia?
Does Alaska get any revenue from the oil(outside of jobs created which pay taxes)?
Does Alaska tax the oil? If so how can they do that if the oil is destined for interstate commerce?
Just some questions I have wondered about.
Anyone know?

Couple of things:
The oil companies have cost overhead, so you have to charge amount such that they'd still make profit. So it would be 20bil barrels x market price - cost - gov't lease.

On top of that the corporations have to pay taxes, so thats another45-50% of the PROFIT.

As far as the economics are concerned, the clause about the ANWR oil staying in the US is a political ploy to make mainstream us population happy. It's completly irrelevant where you keep it, it will still raise the global supply, dropping the whole sale price and increasing global oil consumption.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: techs
OK. The US purchased Alaska from Russia. Then Alaska became a state. But the US government still owned? most of Alaska.

Most of Alaska is federal land. About 80% off the top of my head.

Anyway, the US sets up a national park/wildlife preserve called ANWR. The US owns the land it is on?

It's a federal reserve

The bill to allow drilling in the ANWR charges oil companies 2.5 billion for the lease? Is that the total bill for drilling in the anwr?

The exploratory leases for ANWR come to $5 billion. That is split with the state 50/50. So the US government gets $2.5 billion in the transaction.

If they find 20 billion barrels at a profit of 30 per barrel the US still only gets that 2.5 billion?

That would be part of a development lease unrelated to the exploratory leases. Development leases are based on the price of oil. So no. It costs ~$14/bbl to extract and deliver oil to processing so if they are making $30/bbl that would set a price at ~$44/bbl. In any case, the lease is tied to the cost of oil. The state and the fed would split that 50/50. That would be additional revenue to the exploratory leases.

Is the US gettting a fair deal on the oil leases?

MORE than a fair deal. The Alaska statehood agreement gives Alaska claim to 90% of lease royalties. We typically settle for a 50/50 split. It's a hold up job. The choice is usually to take half of something or 90% of nothing.

A recent change in the anwr bill says all oil from the anwr must not be exported. Does that help America in any shape or form? Isn't whatever oil found in anwr just part of the global oil market since if it stays in the US than US demand for foreign oil drops by the same amount meaning the market for oil is unchanged. And might it be more expensive to keep the oil in the US when geographically it might be easier to send it to Asia?

It probably won't make much of a change in global oil prices but it is another domestic source of oil. ANWR is expected to pump 1-1.3 million barrels a day when it's up and running. That would reduce our need for ME oil by half.

As far as shipping it to Asia goes... All the oil hits the terminal in Valdez. From there it's loaded into tankers and shipped out, usually to California. It isn't any easier to ship it to Asia.

Does Alaska get any revenue from the oil(outside of jobs created which pay taxes)?
Does Alaska tax the oil? If so how can they do that if the oil is destined for interstate commerce?

See above. The oil isn't taxed. Land is leased. The terms of the lease usually involve a cut of the oil revenue. Then the lease revenue is split with teh Fed.

Just some questions I have wondered about.
Anyone know?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: techs
OK. The US purchased Alaska from Russia. Then Alaska became a state. But the US government still owned? most of Alaska.
Anyway, the US sets up a national park/wildlife preserve called ANWR. The US owns the land it is on?
The bill to allow drilling in the ANWR charges oil companies 2.5 billion for the lease? Is that the total bill for drilling in the anwr? If they find 20 billion barrels at a profit of 30 per barrel the US still only gets that 2.5 billion? Is the US gettting a fair deal on the oil leases?
A recent change in the anwr bill says all oil from the anwr must not be exported. Does that help America in any shape or form? Isn't whatever oil found in anwr just part of the global oil market since if it stays in the US than US demand for foreign oil drops by the same amount meaning the market for oil is unchanged. And might it be more expensive to keep the oil in the US when geographically it might be easier to send it to Asia?
Does Alaska get any revenue from the oil(outside of jobs created which pay taxes)?
Does Alaska tax the oil? If so how can they do that if the oil is destined for interstate commerce?
Just some questions I have wondered about.
Anyone know?

Couple of things:
The oil companies have cost overhead, so you have to charge amount such that they'd still make profit. So it would be 20bil barrels x market price - cost - gov't lease.

On top of that the corporations have to pay taxes, so thats another45-50% of the PROFIT.

As far as the economics are concerned, the clause about the ANWR oil staying in the US is a political ploy to make mainstream us population happy. It's completly irrelevant where you keep it, it will still raise the global supply, dropping the whole sale price and increasing global oil consumption.

On top of that the corporations have to pay taxes, so thats another45-50% of the PROFIT.
You really believe this, don't you? (with over 50 percent of fortune 500 companies paying no tax at all)

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: techs
OK. The US purchased Alaska from Russia. Then Alaska became a state. But the US government still owned? most of Alaska.
Anyway, the US sets up a national park/wildlife preserve called ANWR. The US owns the land it is on?
The bill to allow drilling in the ANWR charges oil companies 2.5 billion for the lease? Is that the total bill for drilling in the anwr? If they find 20 billion barrels at a profit of 30 per barrel the US still only gets that 2.5 billion? Is the US gettting a fair deal on the oil leases?
A recent change in the anwr bill says all oil from the anwr must not be exported. Does that help America in any shape or form? Isn't whatever oil found in anwr just part of the global oil market since if it stays in the US than US demand for foreign oil drops by the same amount meaning the market for oil is unchanged. And might it be more expensive to keep the oil in the US when geographically it might be easier to send it to Asia?
Does Alaska get any revenue from the oil(outside of jobs created which pay taxes)?
Does Alaska tax the oil? If so how can they do that if the oil is destined for interstate commerce?
Just some questions I have wondered about.
Anyone know?

Couple of things:
The oil companies have cost overhead, so you have to charge amount such that they'd still make profit. So it would be 20bil barrels x market price - cost - gov't lease.

On top of that the corporations have to pay taxes, so thats another45-50% of the PROFIT.

As far as the economics are concerned, the clause about the ANWR oil staying in the US is a political ploy to make mainstream us population happy. It's completly irrelevant where you keep it, it will still raise the global supply, dropping the whole sale price and increasing global oil consumption.

On top of that the corporations have to pay taxes, so thats another45-50% of the PROFIT.
You really believe this, don't you? (with over 50 percent of fortune 500 companies paying no tax at all)

link?

The federal tax rate is 38%, not sure about the state tax

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Alaska has no state tax... do not let this thread veer off topic and into a lame discussion about taxes.

Thank you.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: techs
OK. The US purchased Alaska from Russia. Then Alaska became a state. But the US government still owned? most of Alaska.
Anyway, the US sets up a national park/wildlife preserve called ANWR. The US owns the land it is on?
The bill to allow drilling in the ANWR charges oil companies 2.5 billion for the lease? Is that the total bill for drilling in the anwr? If they find 20 billion barrels at a profit of 30 per barrel the US still only gets that 2.5 billion? Is the US gettting a fair deal on the oil leases?
A recent change in the anwr bill says all oil from the anwr must not be exported. Does that help America in any shape or form? Isn't whatever oil found in anwr just part of the global oil market since if it stays in the US than US demand for foreign oil drops by the same amount meaning the market for oil is unchanged. And might it be more expensive to keep the oil in the US when geographically it might be easier to send it to Asia?
Does Alaska get any revenue from the oil(outside of jobs created which pay taxes)?
Does Alaska tax the oil? If so how can they do that if the oil is destined for interstate commerce?
Just some questions I have wondered about.
Anyone know?

Couple of things:
The oil companies have cost overhead, so you have to charge amount such that they'd still make profit. So it would be 20bil barrels x market price - cost - gov't lease.

On top of that the corporations have to pay taxes, so thats another45-50% of the PROFIT.

As far as the economics are concerned, the clause about the ANWR oil staying in the US is a political ploy to make mainstream us population happy. It's completly irrelevant where you keep it, it will still raise the global supply, dropping the whole sale price and increasing global oil consumption.

On top of that the corporations have to pay taxes, so thats another45-50% of the PROFIT.
You really believe this, don't you? (with over 50 percent of fortune 500 companies paying no tax at all)

link?

The federal tax rate is 38%, not sure about the state tax

I really shouldn't be responsible for your lack of education and general knowledge. If you don't know that a majority of corporations pay little or no federal tax just do a search on any search engine.
You really should check your facts.
Heres one to start:
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.as...14&refid=ink_tptd_np&skeyword=&teaser=
Many large corporations pay little or no income tax, report reveals
General Electric, United Technologies Corp., SBC Communications, Pfizer and Pitney Bowes were among a group of 82 large, profitable U.S. corporations who paid no income tax in at least one year out of the last three, according to a tax analysis released Wednesday.

The report was prepared by Citizens for Tax Justice, a public policy research group with ties to organized labor, and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

It examined 275 major corporations that posted positive annual earnings from 2001 to 2003. The companies reported ...