In order to do the things I am going to advocate I would have to be king, because with the compromises necessary in a representative form of government the radical measures I propose would probably never be taken. Also important to this scenario (though not nearly as difficult as imagining me be king) is recognizing that the king must still deal with the federal government and the oil companies in the forms we know them now.
First off, let me say the king has been convinced by, Bob Heinrick and Kevin Dow of the ConocoPhillips Alaska oil company, that the "ACES" oil tax structure put in place by the last king (a queen actually, Queen Sarah) is much too costly to oil companies for them to risk investment in drilling new wells. Also the pipeline we have in place is in danger of having a shorter life span because of how little oil is traveling through it.
With these things in mind I would revise the tax structure from the "ACES" program in place now to the proposed legislation HB 110 being discussed in the legislature. Not only would I adopt HB110, but I would put in place a one time deal that any oil produced from a new well, drilled within two years of the date of my offering of said deal, will pay no state taxes for the first two years of production. I believe this would generate a lot of new exploration and production. After the two year tax moratorium all wells would be taxed under the new HB110 tax structure.
Another area that needs immediate attention is access to the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. For oil companies to access this area they need a bridge across the Coleville River. The federal government has been slow to approve permits and such for the building of the bridge. As king I would allow construction of the bridge to begin immediately and not ask for permission from the federal government. It seems to me that Washington has plenty of matters to busy themselves with already without bothering about a bridge in northern Alaska. I think the former King Hickle would have done it this way.
In closing, I would say that the king understands that our economy is like a three legged stool. At least one of these legs is in trouble. I believe the measures I propose would firm up that leg and be good for the kingdom. Thank you very much.
Gary Cox
I like the idea of a King ruling Alaska, that way you wouldn't have the interference of a legislature to deal with, and so thus and perhaps logic might occasionally prevail. Indeed another benefit could be that decisions might actually be made and beneficial projects undertaken within the span of the average resident's lifetime!
ReplyDeleteIf I were King of Alaska however, I'm afraid I would not be so kind and generous to the rival Kings of the oil empires. You might think me a ruthless King when I send them all packing and claim the oil for myself and my subjects. "We shall build our own pipeline," I'd declare, "and then sell the black gold to them at a price which we deem fair. The invisible hand shall no longer rule over us, and thus our own fates and fortunes shall we determine for ourselves!"
Tony Schmidt
Thanks for your input. My premise was, that you still have to deal with the oil companies and the federal government. But I certainly agree FREEDOM.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to live in your Kingdom where it sounds like well-thought of and swift decisions will be made. So much stalling occurs due to numerous reasons which most of we are no privy too-we have the resources, but we are not going to touch it because I am not sure why, but we will continue to spend billions a year talking, thinking, stalling and buying elsewhere....hmmmm? I wonder how less it would have costs to have taken a risk and failed (or equally possible, not fail)? I thought time was money.....
ReplyDelete