Should the Gov't Tax Oil Company profits?

[Caveman_Nick]

The only federal taxes that have rates that high are the estate and gift taxes. So the 45% tax rate claim is dubious. Now, when you factor in many state income taxes the combined rate will obviously be higher than 35% (though state taxes are a deduction on the companies federal return). But I'm not sure if that's what he was getting at.

 

If you consider strictly income taxes, that may well be true. How about import taxes, payroll taxes, sales tax on purchases, real estate taxes paid, etc.

 

I don't really know what they paid in taxes, but I think all of these things need to be taken into account to find out what it really is.

[Caveman_Nick]

If you knew me, you'd know it's all about me all the time.

 

I'm pretty sure that everyone in the Huddle Forums knows this about you already. But maybe you should add this to your sigline

[wirehairman]

No I will not find I am mistaken. Environmental groups are the ONLY groups with STANDING to bring a court case to challenge drilling on legal leases.

 

Edited to add.....because to have standing you have to show you have incurred some sort of injury or loss....to be able to sue. Since most of the arguments against drilling are environmental.....and since drilling hasn't started, no harm can be proven....then environmental groups are the only people/groups who can bring suit in court because they are protecting an endangered sprecies or some sort of environmental hazard....this is why they are the only ones allowed to bring a suit.

 

I will make sure and let all the ranchers, outfitters, wilderness guides, and other area residents along the front that have filed suit to stop exploratory drilling that they can't do what they are doing.

[yo mama]

If you consider strictly income taxes, that may well be true. How about import taxes, payroll taxes, sales tax on purchases, real estate taxes paid, etc.

 

I don't really know what they paid in taxes, but I think all of these things need to be taken into account to find out what it really is.

Perhaps. There might be more to them. Maybe not. But until that gets cleared up the speaker's comments shouldn't be entitled to much probative value. They look wrong on their face, and the two of us sitting around and speculating about where the speaker got his figures won't make his comments any more accurate.

[Azazello1313]

obama supporter warren buffett thinks it's a stupid idea

[Cunning Runt]

Isn't worth the effort to try and have both?

 

By all means. But if I had to choose......

[Cunning Runt]

I'm pretty sure that everyone in the Huddle Forums knows this about you already. But maybe you should add this to your sigline

 

At least I'm consistent if nothing else eh?

[westvirginia]

I will make sure and let all the ranchers, outfitters, wilderness guides, and other area residents along the front that have filed suit to stop exploratory drilling that they can't do what they are doing.

 

Aw man, now you've done it! Shiz is gonna scream about how you're wrong and he doesn't care what kind of research you have, he's right because he knows he's right!

 

How dare you question the immaculate shiznac, the magnificent?

[TheShiznit]

Aw man, now you've done it! Shiz is gonna scream about how you're wrong and he doesn't care what kind of research you have, he's right because he knows he's right!

 

How dare you question the immaculate shiznac, the magnificent?

 

To have legal standing to bring suit you have to show damage....not perceived damage. The only people who can bring environmental challenges are environmental groups as they are seen to have an expertise in this area. If you would simply read some case law you would see that.

 

As for the ranchers....I would look further to see what the name of the case is....I bet there is an environmental group leading the way....as they are the only ones who can bring the suit....cause the ranchers cannot prove damage to have standing.

[TheShiznit]

What is standing? Standing finds its roots in what we all learned in high school civics. The Constitution assigns the courts the power to hear "cases or controversies" that arise under federal law. But what is a case? Over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has determined that a case isn't a case unless the person who wants to sue has standing to sue. This means three things: the plaintiff must be "injured in fact"; the injury must be traceable to the defendant; and the injury must be redressible by judicial action -- that is, the court must be able to do something about it. Without these elements, there is no case; without a case, a federal court has no authority to act.

 

See....a perceived damage is not standing and you cannot sue. And since these are federal leases, it is a federal issue which makes the federal definition of standing the guiding legal principle.

 

Most of the time, this is no big deal. Suppose a bully takes your milk money. If you wanted to make a federal case out of it, you would need a federal law that authorizes you to sue; this legal right is called a "cause of action." Suppose further that you had this right because Congress passed a law that allows lawsuits to recover milk money. You would still need to show a court that you had standing to sue. Now in this example, nobody would worry about standing because it is so obvious. You could claim an injury ("I lost my milk money."). You could trace it to the defendant ("The big bully took it."). And you could ask the court for redress ("Make him give it back."). Simple.

 

Pretty decent example of proper standing.

 

source

[TheShiznit]

Court Dismisses Global Warming Claims for Lack of Standing

 

http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/National/.../sandbar6.3.pdf

[SEC=UGA]

No I will not find I am mistaken. Environmental groups are the ONLY groups with STANDING to bring a court case to challenge drilling on legal leases.

 

Edited to add.....because to have standing you have to show you have incurred some sort of injury or loss....to be able to sue. Since most of the arguments against drilling are environmental.....and since drilling hasn't started, no harm can be proven....then environmental groups are the only people/groups who can bring suit in court because they are protecting an endangered sprecies or some sort of environmental hazard....this is why they are the only ones allowed to bring a suit.

 

 

 

 

Ranchers: Gas drilling, water don’t mix

 

December 2, 2005

By Dale Rodebaugh | Herald Staff Writer

 

A lawsuit by two ranching families in the heart of coal-bed methane gas country east of Durango could require gas-extracting companies statewide to protect the water rights of others.

 

The plaintiffs - Jim and Terry Fitzgerald in La Plata County and Bill and Beth Vance in Archuleta County - allege that the extraction of water from coal-bed seams should be subject to the same regulations as agricultural or sand/gravel operations.

 

Methane gas producers, they say, should have well permits and a plan for replacing water taken in the course of their work.

 

Otherwise, the extraction of water during gas drilling could dry up wells, contaminate ground water or result in flammable tap water, according to the lawsuit, filed Nov. 21 in District Court in Durango.

 

Methane-gas producers dispose of water extracted from coal seams in deep wells or evaporation ponds. Water is extracted to free methane gas from the coal-bed.

 

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/artic...ews051202_1.htm

[SEC=UGA]

No I will not find I am mistaken. Environmental groups are the ONLY groups with STANDING to bring a court case to challenge drilling on legal leases.

 

Edited to add.....because to have standing you have to show you have incurred some sort of injury or loss....to be able to sue. Since most of the arguments against drilling are environmental.....and since drilling hasn't started, no harm can be proven....then environmental groups are the only people/groups who can bring suit in court because they are protecting an endangered sprecies or some sort of environmental hazard....this is why they are the only ones allowed to bring a suit.

 

\New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson raised the ante Friday in his battle to protect a rare desert grassland by announcing the state had filed suit to stop the Bush administration from allowing oil and gas drilling on Otero Mesa, a lonely stretch of federal land near the Texas border.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0423-04.htm

Edited June 30, 2008 by SEC=UGA

[SEC=UGA]

No I will not find I am mistaken. Environmental groups are the ONLY groups with STANDING to bring a court case to challenge drilling on legal leases.

 

Edited to add.....because to have standing you have to show you have incurred some sort of injury or loss....to be able to sue. Since most of the arguments against drilling are environmental.....and since drilling hasn't started, no harm can be proven....then environmental groups are the only people/groups who can bring suit in court because they are protecting an endangered sprecies or some sort of environmental hazard....this is why they are the only ones allowed to bring a suit.

 

The couple has hired Karen Budd-Falen, one of the best-known lawyers in fights over U.S. land policies. They have sued to try to force the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to clean up the land.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/22/news/mining.php

 

Alright, I'm done.

Edited June 30, 2008 by SEC=UGA

[TheShiznit]

\New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson raised the ante Friday in his battle to protect a rare desert grassland by announcing the state had filed suit to stop the Bush administration from allowing oil and gas drilling on Otero Mesa, a lonely stretch of federal land near the Texas border.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0423-04.htm

 

Alright, I'm done.

 

The state can challenge because they have the permit rights....state engineers excetra. What Weirhairman was saying was that you people...you and I....could stop oil drillers because they want to protect the land. That is patently false.

 

First, notice in your first cite, the question before the court is whether or not Methane gas seekers are subject to permiting by the state engineer....or at least regulation by some envirionmental agency. It was not seeking to stop the process....they had no standing and could show no damages. Now the methane company can still work unless the judges orders them to stop....I can file a lawsuit claiming you are an arse....my newspaper can report it....doesn't mean it will ever go to trial....cause I have to show standing.

 

Next, Richardson is the Governor of New Mexico, and he can bring suit to stop the federal government from issuing leases....and that is the case here. Now you are on subject....we were talking about drilling for oil on current leases. Seems this area is being put together to BE LEASED. Richardson has standing in this case because the state of new mexico controls the water rights under this federal land. Now, once he is done challenging the lease, and if he loses all his court battles, and then the BLM leases the land to say BP, then he cannot sue to stop drilling because of environmental reasons.

 

Alright, I am done!

[TheShiznit]

The couple has hired Karen Budd-Falen, one of the best-known lawyers in fights over U.S. land policies. They have sued to try to force the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to clean up the land.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/22/news/mining.php

 

Alright, I'm done.

 

From your source above:

 

The 32,000 acres, or 13,000 hectares, of public land that Blancett and her husband, Linn, use for grazing cattle is now riddled with gas wells and pipelines. Petroleum byproducts have poisoned the water, she said, killing animals and causing the fertility rate to fall.

 

The couple has hired Karen Budd-Falen, one of the best-known lawyers in fights over U.S. land policies. They have sued to try to force the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to clean up the land.

 

Budd-Falen, a prominent Republican from Cheyenne, Wyoming, said the drilling had turned the political world upside down in the West.

 

Now...please scroll up and re-read what I posted about standing. These people have standing because they allege the water is ALREADY contaminated as a result of the exploration by the oil/gas/nat. gas companies.

 

Alright...I am done....AGAIN!

[SEC=UGA]

From your source above:

 

 

 

Now...please scroll up and re-read what I posted about standing. These people have standing because they allege the water is ALREADY contaminated as a result of the exploration by the oil/gas/nat. gas companies.

 

Alright...I am done....AGAIN!

 

You stated that the only entity that can bring suit against the oil companies for drilling are environmental groups because they are the only one's who have standing. I am showing you that other entities can bring suit and have brought suit against oil companies regarding drilling. Even if the lease is legal, States can sue to have the leases retracted and the lands protected. Even if the lease is legal and drilling has commenced, private citizens can sue to have the drilling stopped or to seek monies for clean-up if there is any harm to their land from the drilling activities. To assert otherwise is incorrect.

 

To have standing all that one must do is show that a harm has or could potentially occur. The lawsuits outlined above demonstrate all of these cases.

Edited June 30, 2008 by SEC=UGA

[TheShiznit]

You stated that the only entity that can bring suit against the oil companies for drilling are environmental groups because they are the only one's who have standing. I am showing you that other entities can bring suit and have brought suit against oil companies regarding drilling. Even if the lease is legal, States can sue to have the leases retracted and the lands protected. Even if the lease is legal and drilling has commenced, private citizens can sue to have the drilling stopped or to seek monies for clean-up if there is any harm to their land from the drilling activities. To assert otherwise is incorrect.

 

To have standing all that one must do is show that a harm has or could potentially occur. The lawsuits outlined above demonstrate all of these cases.

 

Umm...NO. I stated that the only entity that could bring suit to keep oil companies from drilling...I.E....before they started, on valid leases is environmental groups. And to have standing, the link I posted clearly states that you have to HAVE damages...not potential damages.

 

Your arguments above are slightly off my and weir's conversation. Can states sue to have leases retracted...sure! Will they get a court date...they must have standing. In some cases a state or municipality will have standing.....like your Richardson link....but that case involved the packaging of a lease by BLM that hasn't happened yet. I would suggest you go back and re-read all those links you posted. Only one of them was about oil drillers being sued by a people and that was because there was a tainted water supply...that is a damage.

 

Now, to be more clear:

 

The only entity who can bring suit to stop oil companies from drilling on currently held leases for environmental reasons are environmental groups. You cannot sue for potential damage that may or may not happen. Now, if through inspection, if an oil company starts to drill, it is found they are using unsafe measures, then the state or municipality will have standing to make sure they are using proper methods...but once the company is in compliance, they can resume drilling.

[SEC=UGA]

Umm...NO. I stated that the only entity that could bring suit to keep oil companies from drilling...I.E....before they started, on valid leases is environmental groups. And to have standing, the link I posted clearly states that you have to HAVE damages...not potential damages.

 

Your arguments above are slightly off my and weir's conversation. Can states sue to have leases retracted...sure! Will they get a court date...they must have standing. In some cases a state or municipality will have standing.....like your Richardson link....but that case involved the packaging of a lease by BLM that hasn't happened yet. I would suggest you go back and re-read all those links you posted. Only one of them was about oil drillers being sued by a people and that was because there was a tainted water supply...that is a damage.

 

Now, to be more clear:

 

The only entity who can bring suit to stop oil companies from drilling on currently held leases for environmental reasons are environmental groups. You cannot sue for potential damage that may or may not happen. Now, if through inspection, if an oil company starts to drill, it is found they are using unsafe measures, then the state or municipality will have standing to make sure they are using proper methods...but once the company is in compliance, they can resume drilling.

 

Thank you for being more clear in your argument. I'm still not certain that you are correct about the Enviro groups being the only that are able to sue for your specified reasons but have neither the time currently nor the inclination to do the required research.

[TheShiznit]

Thank you for being more clear in your argument. I'm still not certain that you are correct about the Enviro groups being the only that are able to sue for your specified reasons but have neither the time currently nor the inclination to do the required research.

 

Me neither!!!! LOL....that we can agree on!

 

BTW, I first heard that on Rush Limbaugh....and it was confirmed for me from the WSJ...about a month or so ago.

[wirehairman]

What Weirhairman was saying was that you people...you and I....could stop oil drillers because they want to protect the land.

 

No, wirehairman is saying parties that would be affected (ranchers, outfitters, wilderness guides, etc.) can bring suit to stop drilling on existing leases and that it is not limited to "environmental" groups.

 

For example:

 

In 1982, the Lewis & Clark National Forest (LCNF), despite strong protest and over 50 appeals, leased most of the Badger-Two Medicine for natural gas development (47 leases). The Environmental Assessment failed to consider ‘No Leasing’ as an alternative or the value of the roadless areas which would be lost, nor did it analyze cumulative effects of potential development. From a cultural perspective, the federal government made further errors in leasing the Badger-Two Medicine. Despite the 1885 Blackfeet Treaty rights and current law, there was no consultation with the Blackfeet Nation and no consideration of religious and cultural values.

 

In other parts of the Rocky Mountain Front (Deep Creek Recommended Wilderness) and the adjacent Flathead National Forest, virtually identical leasing processes were found to be illegal and subsequently invalidated by court order. (See Bob Marshall Alliance v. Watt and Conner v. Burford).

 

Once leased, Applications for Permit to Drill (APD) from lessees must undergo further environmental review under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Fina Oil and Chemical Company, one of the leaseholders, had their first APD near Hall Creek approved in early 1985. After appeals and a suspension, a re-approval was issued in mid-1987. Further appeals caused the decision to again be remanded for further analysis. Chevron, owner of most of the leases in the Badger-Two Medicine at the time, also applied for an APD on Goat Mountain In 1991, after a lengthy Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the APDs submitted by Chevron and Fina, the Lewis and Clark National Forest approved the Fina site even though there was only a 2.24% chance of finding a producible field. The lease suspension that had been imposed during the EIS process was then was lifted.

 

Significant appeals followed, causing the Bureau of Land Management (the agency responsible for federal subsurface resources) to request a remand. The lease suspension was reinstated. A lawsuit was filed and Senate Bill 853 was introduced to declare the Badger-Two Medicine a Wilderness Study area. The lease suspension was then extended to all leases in the Badger-Two Medicine through 1996. The lawsuit was terminated without prejudice to allow the Senate to rule on legislation and to allow the LCNF to conduct more adequate cultural evaluations.

 

After protracted attempts by then-lease holders Chevron and Fina to develop their leases, the companies finally recognized that social, environmental and cultural concerns would consistently delay and possibly stop all development attempts. In 1997, a collaborative agreement was negotiated between attorneys for the Department of Interior, the principle lessees, Montana conservationists and the Blackfeet Nation. The agreement provided a legislative means for willing lessees to relinquish their leases. These leases could be traded for other federal oil and gas lease properties or other consideration.

 

[TheShiznit]

No, wirehairman is saying parties that would be affected (ranchers, outfitters, wilderness guides, etc.) can bring suit to stop drilling on existing leases and that it is not limited to "environmental" groups.

 

For example:

 

 

 

Um...dude....seriously...do you think the laws have changed since 1982....but seriously....this dispute was about a treaty that wasn't adhered to....there was other issues than the environmental effect of drilling which would cause one to have standing. Please try not to complicate what you said....and what you posted above.