Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

0802, 30 Apr 15

North Dakota Revises Tax Code for Oil

This looks like a good deal for the taxpayers and the oil companies.

WILLISTON, N.D. (Reuters) – North Dakota, the second-largest U.S. oil producer, has approved a sweeping reorganization of its oil tax code, cutting the overall rate and ending a tax break of more than $5 billion poised to hit in June.

Governor Jack Dalrymple signed the measure on Wednesday afternoon, his staff told Reuters, lowering the combined rate crude producers will pay by 1.5 percentage points.

The bill also eliminates, starting this December, a so-called “large trigger” tax break worth as much as $5.3 billion to oil producers over a two-year period if it ever took effect.

The large-trigger tax curtails oil extraction taxes during the first 24 month’s of a well’s life. It was meant to encourage production during periods of low oil prices.

“This will provide a more steady, predictable tax system over time,” Dalrymple said in a statement to Reuters. “It’s a trade-off between an unpredictable oil tax regime and one that’s more consistent.”


0802, 30 April 2015


  1. Jadedly Unbiased

    The bill still provides massive breaks at tax payer expense. More corporate welfare.

  2. Dave

    Right, why the huge breaks? They will have huge profits and it’s not like they’re going to move and drill their oil in Oregon instead.

  3. Jadedly Unbiased

    Huge profits and the fact they are financially committed (invested) is why they aren’t entitled to nor should they get incentives or breaks at tax payer expense. Since the theory is corporations are people too they should be required to pay the same tax rate as every other billionaire. That… or lower the price of gas now that the markets flooded and the per barrel price of oil is at record lows. We need statesmen not politicians. We need public servants who will first and foremost represent the interests of the people. Profits over people will eventually lead to the demise of our nation.

  4. Kevin scheunemann

    Obama continues to stop keystone pipeline.

    So oil has to ship more dangerously by rail.

    Who is special interest benefit of Obama’s welfare for railroads….none other that billionaire Democrat Warren Buffett.

    Obama is the biggest pro corporate pork stet there is in government.

  5. Pat

    “Obama continues to stop keystone pipeline.”

    Um the topic is about North Dakota Revising Tax Code for Oil.

  6. Jadedly Unbiased

    I never mentioned Obama or any political party nor is the issue limited to a particular party. Please try to stay focused. The structural failure of a two party system dominated by special interests has led to neglecting the interests of the people. Laws cloaked in appease only work if there is a populace dumb enough to believe.

  7. Kevin scheunemann

    Pat, Jade,

    If pipeline was moving this pork may never have come up.

    You want to criticize corporate pork on oil….the Buffett pork by Obama is far bigger than this drop in pork bucket.

    “Focus” is what I should be saying to you.

  8. Jadedly Unbiased

    I was very specific about corporate welfare being at the expense of taxpayers. Focus…focus. Although the topic at hand remains North Dakotas revised tax code and my unwavering position is still “the bill still provides massive breaks at tax payer expense. More corporate welfare” I believe politicians (Republicans and Democrats) will never fairly represent the people while special interests are involved. As far as your points are concerned, I really don’t take issue with the pipeline. The possible jobs numbers are inflated but that’s no reason to hold it back. “Pork” under Obama, Bush, Clinton or Reagan is still pork. Corporate welfare is B.S.!

  9. Kevin Scheunemann

    I was too.

    Corporate welfare to Warren Buffett is at expense of taxpayers:

    My making him more powerful by denying Keystone pipeline, it opens us all up for worse Democratic Party subsidy of the rich.

    If this small coporate pork, (which is more tax relief than anything), in Owen’s article gets you upset, you should just explode at what Obama is doing for Warren Buffett constantly!

  10. Dave

    Kevin, you have a unique way of taking every conversation and steering it toward some non sequitur far right position you’d like to peddle. Corporate welfare, Republican or Democrat, is inappropriate.

  11. Kevin Scheunemann


    So we are are now complaining about what Democrat politicians, like the Clintons, do everyday?

  12. Jadedly Unbiased

    Oh Kevin. I’m not really sure what to say to you. You make it impossible to have a focused debate about a single specific issue. Spin it any way you like the result is still the same… corporate welfare is B.S.

  13. Kevin Scheunemann

    Great, we agree on corporate welfare.

    I’d just like to hear Dave, yourself, and other liberals scream as loudly with all the largesse Obama gives Democrat Warren Buffett.

    Liberals complain about tax breaks and streamlining of tax breaks here, but I hear little when Obama writes big stimulus checks to Buffett.

    This issue is “not a big deal”, and actually makes some sense, compared to what is really going on with Obama and his administration.

  14. Jadedly Unbiased

    Do you have some sort of mental deficiency? Let me scream this in your ear…I AM NOT A LIBERAL and I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR ISSUE.
    Get off your soap box and STAY FOCUSED.

  15. Kevin scheunemann

    You comment on car jacking case sure says liberal in action. Letting evil run wild and being pacifist is hallmark liberalism unless the criminal was drinking a big gulp or smoking indoors.

  16. Jadedly Unbiased

    I’m far from a pacifist and would have personally kicked the shit out of the unarmed carjacker with my bare hands.

  17. Jadedly Unbiased

    Years ago, my wife was breast feeding our new born daughter when she heard something on the ledge outside of our second story window. She looked out the window and came face to face with a “peeping tom”. I came running to her screams and calls. I gave chase and caught the pervert. I tackled him and in the process he scraped his face on the concrete. In the struggle blows were exchanged but but he could escape. As I restrained him, waiting for the police, he threatened to kill me and said he had a gun. Again, the struggled escalated but he could not overcome me. When the police arrived I was taken at gun point, put in hand cuffs and detained. The police assumed because of his injuries and with me restraining him that I had caused the injuries. Lucky for me some neighbors told the police he sustained the injuries when he fell off the roof (partially true). I could have legally killed this man protecting my family and property. I turns out the man had alcohol and drug issues complicated by some mental health issues. While taking my daughter to her first day of kindergarten (five years later) I noticed a young girl be comforted by her father. Yes it was the “peeping tom”. He paid for his crime, got the helped he needed and although his life isn’t perfect his daughter seemed lucky to have him on her first day. If that makes me a “liberal in action” in your opinion I can live with that.

  18. T of B

    I could have legally killed this man protecting my family and property

    You don’t know much about the law, I suspect.

  19. Jadedly Unbiased

    “Legally”may not have been the word to use. The courts would have to determine the legality. However, in the state I lived in at that time, it would have been within my rights to shoot and kill this man in protection of my family and property. He was clearly a threat. Do you assume to know something more then me or are you just stirring the pot? Do you need the state, year and statute? Should I provide you with the witness statements, police reports and court transcripts. I suppose without all of that you’ll just peer back into that crystal ball and assume to have the legal answer. Fools rush to judgement and make assumptions without any facts.

  20. Kevin scheunemann


    So if you would have kicked the posterior excrement out of carjacker, it is just use of gun you are upset about in that story?

    Can’t you kill someone kicking the posterior excrement out of them?

  21. Pat

    Congratulations Kevin, you are once again successful at taking a subject and completely remaking it into something completely different from what it originally was. Why do you consistently use eristic arguments just to satisfy your narcissistic view of yourself.

  22. Jadedly Unbiased

    It’s killing in general that I’m opposed to. Don’t have a problem with guns or how one decides to carry it. Just putting out an alternative method to subdue the criminal that wouldn’t end in even more killing. I don’t want to rehash this but… As a Christian I personally have an issue with killing (good or evil). I understand that its sometimes the only option but that doesn’t mean I have to like it or shouldn’t have a right to question it. If you agree with the shoot em up method be prepare for the collateral damage that is inevitable. Violence begets violence.

  23. Kevin Scheunemann


    So Jade had nothing to do with it? (I’ll take “blame”, but I’m certain other conversation participants helped with that. I find that liberals, rather than address the argument, like to make it about WHO is making the argument instead. So what is it that I do that a a typical liberal does? And is that a problem because I’m not a liberal in the modern day sense? .)


    Consider reading this,

    There is a difference between justifiable anger at those that set aside God’s commands, and sinful anger.

    Would you like to come to a bible study on subject?

  24. Jadedly Unbiased

    Once again, thank you for the offer but I am happy attending my church. I do understand your point of view.

Pin It on Pinterest