in louisiana I can bid on state land for mineral rights to extract oil. I pay a lease fee, then I pay royalties on every barrel I extract. I own the oil from well to tanker.

In Alaska I can lease state land for a license to extract alaska's oil. I take the state's oil from the ground, put it into a pipeline that is a transport company owned facility that charges the state for transporting the oil. In valdez the oil is divided with the state paying the transport and extraction costs with oil, and the state retains what oil is left after everyone is paid. It is a different model.

Left or right wing, this publication obviously doesnt want a gas pipeline. They claim that Palin wants to give $500 million to a pipeline company with no gas leases. Alaska owns the gas in those fields and is hugely pissed at the oil companies for not wanting to make the effort to extract and sell that gas. The gas reserves on the slope is many times the ORIGINAL oil deposits there.

What is odd, and why I cant really tell left or right on this page, is the phrase we jacked oil taxes.
No, several state lawmakers were sent to jail for taking bribes from oil companies to keep the oil royalties artificially low. The entire demo/repo state government went into special session after the arrests and got an equitable deal for the state. If the oil companies dont like it, they can leave the fields and alaska can find someone else to do the work
thanx,
bill

http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=2785
When Palin came into office, she wanted to limit big oil's influence over the state's affairs, and when she took over the project (from the executive end), she absolutely insisted there would be no deal with any company unless the state retained its sovereignty.

she said retained hehe
means thay had it before
anything else I can help you wid?