Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

[Intrinsic]

Katie Porter SCHOOLS Big Oil exec after being told she had a "misconception"

He really did try to explain tax law to Rep. Katie Porter, and it didn’t go well for him

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/3 ... ssil-fuels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 Tuesday, a New Mexico-based oil and gas exploration company, Strata Production, sent their president Mark Murphy to answer questions in front of the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Porter is new on the committee and has been championing a bill she recently introduced that promises to “raise fees on polluters extracting from public lands.” Companies like the one Murphy runs have not simply acted as polluters for decades, they have been incentivized to so do by the government through special tax breaks and the like. 

As her time came to a close, Rep. Porter asked about one of the special incentives that make Murphy and Strata’s business model completely rigged in comparison to other business models—Intangible Drilling Costs. Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs) are “one of the largest tax breaks available specifically to oil companies, allowing companies to deduct most of the costs of drilling new wells in the United States.” They are above the line tax deductions that allow fossil fuel companies to deduct up to 70% of their costs right up front. It’s important to also understand that depending on the estimate, drilling costs make up 60-90% of IDCs, to which Murphy gave an incomprehensibly fraudulent answer, saying that the oil industry did not receive any different tax breaks or structures than any other business or industry.

REP. KATIE PORTER: You do benefit from special rules. There’s a special tax rule for intangible drilling costs that does not apply to other kinds of expenses that businesses have. You get to deduct 70% of your costs immediately, and other businesses have to amortize their expenses over their entire profit stream. So please don’t patronize me by telling me that the oil and gas industry doesn’t have any special tax provisions. Because if you would like that to be the rule, I would be happy to have Congress deliver.

Sound the Bell
School's in sucka

Murphy didn’t bother to learn that Rep. Porter is a former tax law professor.

[Butcher Bob]

I understand both positions, and both are somewhat correct. What they are talking aboot are depreciation scheduals that convert "asset" costs to "expenses", over a period of time. Some types of assets have a straight-line schedual, where the amount is equally divided among a given number of years...and some types of assets have a weighted schedual, where the bulk of the costs are converted in the earlier years of the time period. Katie is completely correct that oil & gas drilling costs have their own weighted scheduals for those costs. But he is also correct that this type of schedual is used in many industries...for example, R&D costs in the pharmaceutical industry will have it's own weighted schedual, similar to how drilling costs are done for oil & gas. It's not as big of a "gotcha" as you may think.

I think the bigger issue is that the royalty rates haven't been reassessed since they were instituted over 100 years ago...which is exactly what she is arguing needs to be done. What was appropriate 100 years ago, is not what is appropriate today....society's circumstances have changed, and those royalty rates need to reflect that change. The whole purpose of raising those rates now would be to disincentivize fossil fuel use. Back 100 years ago, we wanted industry to thrive, so a lower rate was a method to subsidize that...now the prevailing concern has changed to reducing carbon emissions, so a hike in the royalty rates is completely appropriate. We should be phasing out ALL oil & gas subsidies.

[Intrinsic]

Wha.. what gotcha moment???
A slimeball being called out on same old tired lies wrapped in quasi legality, something that's been going on for decades. Truth prevails, thank you Katie Porter.

No I think the bigger issue is the why oil companies have been given breaks over the decades because it is a non-renewable resource, they're the ones labeled petroleum as fossil fuel to ensure those breaks. Those incentives were gone 50 years, should have been. But then when it comes to natural resource management, i'm socialist.

I disagree, a hike in the royalty rates is Not appropriate.
We should have phased out ALL oil & gas subsidies, decades ago when this was talked about in the 80s. NO phase out jes end it this year. Petroleum industry has had plenty of time to prepare, Katie Porter isn't telling them anything new.

[Butcher Bob]

Your whole post is describing the exchange as a gotcha moment.

It is funny you take my post as adversarial...when it is meant to be educational. I am well versed in taxation and applicable accounting methods. When I watch the exchange, then read the article's description of it, I notice a big disconnect...which is what I'm trying to explain to you. When Katie says...

REP. KATIE PORTER: There’s a special tax rule for intangible drilling costs that does not apply to other kinds of expenses that businesses have.

...that is not exactly true. While it is true that the oil & gas industry does have it's own schedual for expensing those costs, it is not true that other industries do not have the same type of front end heavy scheduals. This type of weighted depreciation amortization is a common method. Even simple assets like vehicles make use of weighted scheduals, where the bulk of the cost is expensed in the earliest years.

Now it's quite possible she is talking aboot the difference in timing between when royalty fees are expensed, compared to when they are actually charged...being allowed to expense some of those costs years before they are incurred...but that's not what she is saying, at least not clearly. And it is most likely that industries such as mining have very similar practices.

While these types of subsidies could be adjusted immediately, that action would carry some unintended consequences with it. In an ideal world, investors would simply take the hit...but in a realistic world, those costs will be passed on to consummers instead. That would cause a ripple effect through the economy as a whole. Phasing in those changes eases losses to investors, and helps minimize any ripple effect.

[Intrinsic]

by Michael Carlowicz and Kathryn Hansen
Lake Mead is the largest reservoir in the United States and part of a system that supplies water to at least 40 million people across seven states and northern Mexico. It stands today at its lowest level since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president. This means less water will be portioned out to some states in the 2022 water year.

As of August 22, 2021, Lake Mead was filled to just 35 percent of its capacity. The low water level comes at a time when 95 percent of the land in nine Western states is affected by some level of drought (64 percent is extreme or worse). It continues a 22-year megadrought that may be the region’s worst dry spell in twelve centuries.
...
The biggest cuts will come to Arizona, which will receive 512,000 fewer acre-feet, approximately 18 percent of the state’s annual apportionment and 8 percent of the state’s total water use (for agriculture and human consumption). An acre-foot is enough water to supply one to two households a year.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image ... record-low



Republican Party is too busy overthrowing the Constitutional Republic of the United States to pay much attention to policy matters at the moment here.

oops forgot the graphics

[Intrinsic]

Antarctica 40 degrees celius above average, 75 Fahrenheit. The Artic 30C or 50F above.
Melting in both places!



Good news. Decline in the petrodollar.

[Lrus007]

https://www.hw.ac.uk/news/articles/2021 ... tracks.htm
but what about the crabs

[Intrinsic]

California just shy of 100% powered by renewables for first time

While partygoers celebrated in the blazing sunshine at the Stagecoach music festival, energy demand statewide hit 18,672 megawatts at 2:45 p.m., "and at 2:50, we reached 99.87% of load served by all renewables, which broke the previous record ... of 97.58%," said Anna Gonzales, spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator, or CAISO, a nonprofit that oversees the state's bulk electric power system and transmission lines.

Two thirds of the 18,000 megawatts needed was provided by solar power loaded into the energy grid — or 12,391 megawatts. The rest came from wind, geothermal and other renewable sources.

Environmentalists who've pushed for years for all of California's power to come from renewables were jubilant on Saturday as they watched the tracker edge closer to 100% and past.
https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/en ... 609975002/

[Intrinsic]

Medford Oregon hit 115 yesterday. Western US, Europe and Turkey continue to burn.
16 deaths from record floods in Kentucky.

who would have predicted it?