• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

For Steve, the Generalizer

Steve

Well-known member
tex
I am glad to see that you have come to admit that you agree with me on the other issues. It sure took you long enough to admit it.

well, you can't be wrong all the all the time but I'm right most of the time.... :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
Record oil prices are enough of an incentive for drilling. Giving more tax advantages for drilling will not make more oil in the ground, and it didn't increase the amount that they did drill for enough to hold prices down. We have had record oil company profits and on top of that they get tax breaks.

isn't that an example of a generalized comment that you keep claiming I am making?

any ways feel free to open a thread and I will show how your comment is flawed and not actually true... but for now...

"As the House prepared to impose new fees on oil and gas taken from federal waters,...
Democrats are confident they can approve an energy package Thursday which includes a conservation fee on oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico, seeks to recoup royalties lost because of a government error in drilling leases in the late 1990s,... The flawed 1998-1999 leases -- which failed to include a threshold requiring royalty payments once market prices reach a certain level -- have been a priority target of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

I think your confusing tax incentives with low lease incentives.. and liberals trying to say that a exploration cost is not a cost...

"Among the most egregious provisions is a tax break that will allow the industry to write off the cost of exploring for deposits-even in instances when they actually strike oil."

Any expense the oil company makes is a cost.. exploration is a cost... research is a cost... and should be able to be written off..

another issue they complainers use is...

"the energy bill would cost taxpayers billions more by forcing states and local communities to pay for the cleanup costs associated with decontaminating drinking water polluted with the gasoline additive MTBE. "

States and the Fed mandated the addition of additives such as MTBE... and should pay for it's error... But the corporations that failed to maintain thier facilitites shouldn't be let off the hook either...

but that is another topic...

Part of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's priority agenda for the first 100 hours of Democratic control of Congress, the energy proposals targeting highly profitable oil and gas companies

and as I said before targeting a industry because you don't like them is punitive... and punishing an industry and corporations with more and new taxes is wrong...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
Giving more tax advantages for drilling will not make more oil in the ground, and it didn't increase the amount that they did drill for enough to hold prices down.

selling them leases is not a tax advantage...

complaining that the fed lost money because the leases proved productive shows that the incentives to drill worked...

now complaining that they made record profits off the reduced royalty is like selling an old dodge with a blown engine for a few hudred bucks to your friend, and than whining after he fixed, restored, and sold it to a collector for a few grand...
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve, again, you show you only know the talking points given to you. Here is a better article to understand what happened under Clinton, then when pointed out, approved by Bush.

Published on 26 Mar 2006 by Daily Kos. Archived on 27 Mar 2006.
NYT: Bush's $28 billion giveaway to oil companies

by Jerome a Paris
RELATED NEWS:

God is Brazilian?...

United States - Dec 22...

Energy industries - Dec 28...

Reducing DoD fossil-fuel dependence...

Follow-up to ‘The Big Melt’ challenges assumptions on Co2 targets....

At a time when all oil producing countries are increasing their tax take to capture some of the increased value of the oil production (even the UK has recently increased the main tax rate from 40 to 50%), the Bush administration is busy doing the opposite. Recent executive decisions, and smart use by oil companies in lawsuits of ambiguous wording of the applicable laws, threaten to leave up to two thirds of Gulf of Mexico gas production paying no taxes, at a loss to taxpayers of $28 billion, according to the New York Times.

Let me summarise the main points of that fairly long and complex article.

- in 1995, the Clinton administration gave its support to a new programme exempting from royalty payments (usually, 12%) new offshore drilling for oil or gas in deep water, up to a given volume.

- One mistake was made - that of not capping the hydrocarbon price for which such incentive was available (but at least the Clinton administration had the partial excuse that oil prices were then low and not expected to go up).

- A deceptive evaluation of the cost of that measure was made, as it counted only the first 5 years of exemption in the cost, when fields usually take that long, if not longer to be developed. The cost of the exemption was thus counted as almost zero instead of its real cost over the years.

That's the Clinton legacy. The cost of that is not assessed by the NYT, but they mention that it applies to one sixth of Gulf of Mexico production, which would mean, in the current environment, about 100m$/year. But we now move on to the Bush years:

- in early 2001 (not wasting any time), new incentives were provided for shallow water producers (i.e. something easier to do). Gale Horton did put a threshhold limit, but it was then seen as an extremely high prices (5$/mbtu limit, compared to the 2-3$/mbtu wholesale price then prevalent in the North American market). And in 2004, when gas prices had increased, the threshhold level was also increased, to an extravagant 9.34$/mbtu;

- in 2003, the oil industry successfully sued the administration about an interpretation of the law: the volume limit was deemed to apply per lease, and not per hydrocarbon field. Knowing that you typically have 3 leases per field, that decision immediately tripled the cost in lost royalties. Now the Bush administration cannot be blamed for the poorly worded 1995 law, but it then did nothing to change it;

- the most recent Energy Bill, passed last summer, extended and confirmed all the royalty exemptions, and added a few other sweeteners.

And now, some oil companies are trying to get rid of some of the caps on royalty relief that still exist on the rest of the offshore oil&gas production (the article is not clear on what these caps are, I'll try to investagate further). That would allow up to two thirds of oil&gas production in the Gulf of Mexico to be tax exempt...

And yet production is down, shortages loom, and prices have skyrocketed. And we all know where oil profits are. I don't buy accusations of price gouging, but this is waaay far more effective for the oil companies, and much more discreet.

Hey, it's only a couple of months of War in Iraq, so it's not that much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: Editorial from the NY Times Big Oil's Big Windfall (March 28)


This give away was started by Clinton. By your own standards, and your support of this boondoggle, you are nothing more than a closet liberal.

Exxon didn't give its old CEO almost half a billion dollars when retiring for nothing. They took it from the American people in the form of unpaid royalties on public assets and made the highest profits of any company on earth in one quarter on the run up on energy.
 

Steve

Well-known member
again...

I think your confusing tax incentives with low lease incentives.. and liberals trying to say that an exploration cost is not a cost...

Selling oil companies leases is not a tax advantage...

Complaining that the fed lost money because the leases proved productive shows that the incentives to drill worked...

Now complaining that they made record profits off the reduced royalty is like selling an old dodge with a blown engine for a few hudred bucks to your friend, and than whining after he fixed, restored, and sold it to a collector for a few grand...

All my comments are still valid... your wanting to make it a tax arguement for increaseing taxes on corporations is still punitive..

The corporations worked by the rules made by the Clinton.. and despite the regulations made a profit...

Now that the profit is deemed excessive you want to punish them for taking the risk...

I believe when a error is made in a law or a discovery that a loop hole exists that can be exploited, the law maker in office should act responsibly and fix the law... not sit around for a year and whine about how unfair the law is...

Tex
and your support of this boondoggle, you are nothing more than a closet liberal.

as for the rest of your comments... yes, I am open minded enough to see the truth.. and no I don't support the "boondoggle... I am just not going to punish American corporations with punitive taxes because they took a risk and it paid off..

Why is it that when ever you are proven wrong.. you start insulting the person with your comments???

If you don't think the debate is up to your ego's standards then go and find some one who will not always prove you wrong and debate them...

Because now that you sunken to attempting to insult, instead of debate...feel free to argue with your self.. as far as I am concerned the discussion with you is over... and you have shown how childish you really are again....
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
again...

I think your confusing tax incentives with low lease incentives.. and liberals trying to say that an exploration cost is not a cost...

Selling oil companies leases is not a tax advantage...

Complaining that the fed lost money because the leases proved productive shows that the incentives to drill worked...

Now complaining that they made record profits off the reduced royalty is like selling an old dodge with a blown engine for a few hudred bucks to your friend, and than whining after he fixed, restored, and sold it to a collector for a few grand...

All my comments are still valid... your wanting to make it a tax arguement for increaseing taxes on corporations is still punitive..

The corporations worked by the rules made by the Clinton.. and despite the regulations made a profit...

Now that the profit is deemed excessive you want to punish them for taking the risk...

I believe when a error is made in a law or a discovery that a loop hole exists that can be exploited, the law maker in office should act responsibly and fix the law... not sit around for a year and whine about how unfair the law is...

Tex
and your support of this boondoggle, you are nothing more than a closet liberal.

as for the rest of your comments... yes, I am open minded enough to see the truth.. and no I don't support the "boondoggle... I am just not going to punish American corporations with punitive taxes because they took a risk and it paid off..

Why is it that when ever you are proven wrong.. you start insulting the person with your comments???

If you don't think the debate is up to your ego's standards then go and find some one who will not always prove you wrong and debate them...

Because now that you sunken to attempting to insult, instead of debate...feel free to argue with your self.. as far as I am concerned the discussion with you is over... and you have shown how childish you really are again....

Steve, royalties are not taxes, I know that. They are, however, revenue.

There is no way a liberal like you can say that the U.S. should give up its resources to big business. That is exactly what the leases did under Clinton because the dept. of interior, or whoever wrote the leases, did not account for a possible, if not probable increase in energy prices. Bush continued the bad leases and actually put his own stamp of approval on it. I don't have any problem with oil and gas companies making money, but giving natural resources to big oil did nothing to increase the energy enough to decrease prices, nor did it do anything to give taxpayers their fair share of the royalties. It is a fact that the oil companies did not need these extra give aways to do this drilling. There is no evidence that is true at all.

I have never had a problem expensing costs of exploration as you seem to imply. It is something you made up yourself so you could win your own argument. A huge tax benefit was given to companies when 70 % of the costs of drilling were allowed to be depreciated immediately and the remaining 30% over the next 5 years. This does not come close to the actual depreciation, which gives you a huge tax advantage if you are an oil company. They don't need it when the price of oil is so high in order to encourage them to drill. The money from their drilling is enough incentive and the rest is just a taxpayer give away.

We have to remember that this is a non renewable resource, not an investment in a renewable resource. I think you are confused on that point.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
They don't need it when the price of oil is so high in order to encourage them to drill. The money from their drilling is enough incentive

the fact remains that in the year the leases were drawn up... they weren't a give-away or a great deal for the oil corporations... the wells were not "expected to profit".. the bill was flawed in that it did not have a long term cap.. not in it's purpose..


and I don't find you calling me a liberal as insulting.. it just shows how little you rely on facts... and base most of your arguement on emotion... :roll: :roll:
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
ff said:
And Huckabee says he'll get rid of the IRS.

:shock: Okay. My checkbook is in hand. Where do I send the political contribution? :D

I hadn't heard this one. Flat tax is the only fair way. No loop holes and no scales. No exemptions for anyone.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex
They don't need it when the price of oil is so high in order to encourage them to drill. The money from their drilling is enough incentive

the fact remains that in the year the leases were drawn up... they weren't a give-away or a great deal for the oil corporations... the wells were not "expected to profit".. the bill was flawed in that it did not have a long term cap.. not in it's purpose..


and I don't find you calling me a liberal as insulting.. it just shows how little you rely on facts... and base most of your arguement on emotion... :roll: :roll:


Steve, I usually judge things on the results, not intent. That is how business works, if you haven't noticed.

You can come up with a lot of excuses, but that is all it is. We have had an incompetent government that will sell out public policy and assets to keep those in power in their same places.

There is no excuse for it and we should undo the damage when it happens if we can.

You on the other hand want to excuse it, coming up with all the excuses in the world.

When I said that rich corporations were not paying their fair share, this was an example of it, regardless of all the liberal excuses you can think of.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
Steve, I usually judge things on the results, not intent. That is how business works,

The result was that we have oil from these lease to tax.. and the addditional revenue they generated..

Maybe you can answer this simple question..


which is greater 20% of nothing... (the result of not drillling)

or 20% of $7 billion,.. (the amount of the percieved revenue loss from the royalties in 2007)






officials say that the benefits are dictated by laws and regulations that date back to 1996, when energy prices were relatively low and Congress wanted to encourage more exploration and drilling in the high-cost, high-risk deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

"We need to remember the primary reason that incentives are given," said Johnnie M. Burton, director of the federal Minerals Management Service. "It's not to make more money, necessarily. It's to make more oil, more gas, because production of fuel for our nation is essential to our economy and essential to our people."
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex
Steve, I usually judge things on the results, not intent. That is how business works,

The result was that we have oil from these lease to tax.. and the addditional revenue they generated..

Maybe you can answer this simple question..


which is greater 20% of nothing... (the result of not drillling)

or 20% of $7 billion,.. (the amount of the percieved revenue loss from the royalties in 2007)






officials say that the benefits are dictated by laws and regulations that date back to 1996, when energy prices were relatively low and Congress wanted to encourage more exploration and drilling in the high-cost, high-risk deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

"We need to remember the primary reason that incentives are given," said Johnnie M. Burton, director of the federal Minerals Management Service. "It's not to make more money, necessarily. It's to make more oil, more gas, because production of fuel for our nation is essential to our economy and essential to our people."

You still don't understand it, do you steve? The contracts merely needed a clause that stated if oil was below a stated price, the royalties would be waived, not a blanket waiver of all the royalties.

The contracts were written ineptly by the Clinton administration, and yet you still defend them.

Just give up steve. It is time you stop defending an incompetent government, especially a Clinton administration action that carte blanch gave away U.S. assets to big business.
 

Steve

Well-known member
tex
Just give up steve. It is time you stop defending an incompetent government,

try to twist my answer around all you want... I was defending big business... it shows the childish levels you go to to win an arguement...

the intent of the leases were correct at the time they were written...


I am not defending the error...or lack of a cap.. and you know it.. and every one on here could and has read that..

but in your childish ways you believe winning the arguement is more important then the truth... makeing you just like the extreme in your leftist party...

your just as sad and pathatic as neocon101 was.. and I am done with you...

I don't find you calling me a liberal as insulting.. it just shows how little you rely on facts... and base most of your arguement on emotion.. :roll: :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
tex
Just give up steve. It is time you stop defending an incompetent government,

try to twist my answer around all you want... I was defending big business... it shows the childish levels you go to to win an arguement...

the intent of the leases were correct at the time they were written...


I am not defending the error...or lack of a cap.. and you know it.. and every one on here could and has read that..

but in your childish ways you believe winning the arguement is more important then the truth... makeing you just like the extreme in your leftist party...

your just as sad and pathatic as neocon101 was.. and I am done with you...

I don't find you calling me a liberal as insulting.. it just shows how little you rely on facts... and base most of your arguement on emotion.. :roll: :roll:

Defend tax loopholes all you want steve. Even defend the Clinton administration and their big give aways to big business at taxpayer expense.

You back down from every position when you are confronted with facts that your little shallow liberal vs. conservative name calling can't comprehend.

Maybe you should try not to be so disagreeable. It might not cost you your credibility.
 

Steve

Well-known member
tex your a lier and an ass...

tex
Quote:
Steve, I don't think you get it.


I know you don't get it but I'll retype it for you...

I am not defending the Clinton error... just the intent of the law... and the results... the result is that when oil prices went up... these wells were already in production... not just going out for lease... and we are already taxing the profit and recieveing royalty

The oil companies bargained in good faith... do I like that they made huge profits... not really but I like it alot more then huge losses or them folding up..



but you can't seem to read because you want an arguement...

so I'll repeat myself... discussion over ...if all you want to do is argue then argue with your self...
 

Steve

Well-known member
tex
Defend tax loopholes all you want steve. Even defend the Clinton administration and their big give aways to big business at taxpayer expense.

You back down from every position when you are confronted with facts that your little shallow liberal vs. conservative name calling can't comprehend.

Maybe you should try not to be so disagreeable. It might not cost you your credibility.

maybe you should tell every one who you really are...
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Steve said:
tex
Defend tax loopholes all you want steve. Even defend the Clinton administration and their big give aways to big business at taxpayer expense.

You back down from every position when you are confronted with facts that your little shallow liberal vs. conservative name calling can't comprehend.

Maybe you should try not to be so disagreeable. It might not cost you your credibility.

maybe you should tell every one who you really are...
You're assuming that everyone doesn't know who he is.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
tex your a lier and an ass...

tex
Quote:
Steve, I don't think you get it.


I know you don't get it but I'll retype it for you...

I am not defending the Clinton error... just the intent of the law... and the results... the result is that when oil prices went up... these wells were already in production... not just going out for lease... and we are already taxing the profit and recieveing royalty

The oil companies bargained in good faith... do I like that they made huge profits... not really but I like it alot more then huge losses or them folding up..



but you can't seem to read because you want an arguement...

so I'll repeat myself... discussion over ...if all you want to do is argue then argue with your self...

So are you arguing that we wouldn't have been better off receiving those royalties in the strategic petroleum reserve?

Those oil companies made a great deal with politicians they were paying off. It wasn't a great deal for the public. It was a clear example of politicians selling out the public interest to private interests.

My point is that times have changed, and since the low prices are not there, the companies need to pay their fair share---regardless of how well they were able to buy off politicians in the past.

You don't.

You want to stick the public and taxpayers with a bad deal, even when the basis of that bad deal no longer exists because you THINK that oil companies bargained in good faith.

You are about as bad as liberals who didn't want to change a corrupt welfare state. Their excuse was that people depended on it. At least in that liberal argument it had to do with people having food to eat, not corporate greed as you argue.

We need to make rich corporations pay their fair share of the tax burden, not get out of it with loopholes kept by paying off politicians.

Your "liberalism" to corporate greed is just as bad as the "liberal" welfare state. Middle class taxpayers pay for both.

I just don't happen to be so ideological polarized as to give up common sense or continue bad policies.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Steve said:
tex
Defend tax loopholes all you want steve. Even defend the Clinton administration and their big give aways to big business at taxpayer expense.

You back down from every position when you are confronted with facts that your little shallow liberal vs. conservative name calling can't comprehend.

Maybe you should try not to be so disagreeable. It might not cost you your credibility.

maybe you should tell every one who you really are...
You're assuming that everyone doesn't know who he is.

Who is this wanna be ?? Tex has no arguments because he cannot see past his own self importance (IN HIS MIND)
Tes why are you so determined to try and make yourself look good when all you do is make your self look worse with every post!
Give it up!!!!
 

Tex

Well-known member
hopalong said:
Red Robin said:
Steve said:
tex

maybe you should tell every one who you really are...
You're assuming that everyone doesn't know who he is.

Who is this wanna be ?? Tex has no arguments because he cannot see past his own self importance (IN HIS MIND)
Tes why are you so determined to try and make yourself look good when all you do is make your self look worse with every post!
Give it up!!!!

hobalong, you are equally welcome with rr and steve to pay for the taxes that these loopholes have provided for this corporate welfare. I for one don't want to, nor do I want to add more debt to the nation to do it.
 

Latest posts

Top