Should California impose an oil extraction fee?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2024, 01:08:40 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should California impose an oil extraction fee?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Well?
#1
Yes
 
#2
California must not follow socialists like Sarah Palin
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 23

Author Topic: Should California impose an oil extraction fee?  (Read 939 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,811


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 21, 2013, 06:40:23 PM »

In 2006, Prop. 87, which would have had a 6% fee was defeated.
Sarah Palin increased the fees in Alaska to 25%.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2013, 06:46:39 PM »

I assume this is some sort of royalty? Sure

You'd make a great push poller Jfern
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,811


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2013, 01:39:36 AM »
« Edited: September 24, 2013, 01:41:49 AM by ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ »

BTW, a pro-fracking bill recently passed here in California. The Monterey Shale has 15 billion barrels of oil that could be extracted with current techniques. Who needs Republicans when California Democrats screw the environment for you?

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/07
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2013, 11:04:40 AM »

BTW, a pro-fracking bill recently passed here in California. The Monterey Shale has 15 billion barrels of oil that could be extracted with current techniques. Who needs Republicans when California Democrats screw the environment for you?

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/07

I'm ok with drilling for oil in very small doses as long as it's not subsidized and no oil refineries.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,713
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2013, 02:04:43 PM »

BTW, a pro-fracking bill recently passed here in California. The Monterey Shale has 15 billion barrels of oil that could be extracted with current techniques. Who needs Republicans when California Democrats screw the environment for you?

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/07

What do you mean by current techniques?  Aren't they having a hard time figuring out how to extract it?  Otherwise they'd be doing it already.

Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,811


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2013, 10:15:16 PM »
« Edited: September 24, 2013, 10:18:30 PM by ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/14/news/economy/california-oil-boom/index.html
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,313


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2013, 10:18:22 PM »

Before California allows anymore drilling, it should impose an extraction fee. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either an idiot, or doesn't have the best interests of California at heart.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2013, 03:44:36 PM »

Yes, they should.  That's part and parcel for any oil extraction by private interests:  The people get their share of the profits.
Logged
The Free North
CTRattlesnake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,569
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2013, 04:14:03 PM »

Normally I would say, not an issue, but considering California's issues with their economy, I dont think this is what the state needs.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,313


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2013, 09:44:24 PM »

Normally I would say, not an issue, but considering California's issues with their economy, I dont think this is what the state needs.

Umm, the California economy is doing just fine. You know that, right?
Logged
Flake
JacobTiver
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2013, 04:03:58 PM »

Normally I would say, not an issue, but considering California's issues with their economy, I dont think this is what the state needs.

Umm, the California economy is doing just fine. You know that, right?

They actually have a surplus!

Fun fact: The U.S. government has not had a surplus for each month since 2001
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,641
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2013, 10:30:09 PM »

Yes, actually; this can add to the state's surplus or lead to lower direct taxes on people while the industry itself is barely even harmed. Freedom Tax.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.22 seconds with 14 queries.