Mountain Watershed Association's Visual Assessment Manual

[franklin]

Chaz wrote:
We ARE NOT being compensated for the gas, leases don't begin to address the severance of the gas from Pennsylvania. They only pay the state for the lease with royalties. Non of the gas pumped out of the ground is going to benefit Pennsylvanias, and if the current state of affairs doesn't change we won't see anything to benefit us. The only benefit is to the Government it will aloow the state legislature to continue their policies of over-spending on everything they do and allow the government to expand even more. Provided of course they even make an attempt to balance the state budget.

The state is being compensated the same as private land owners through royalty payments. On private land the owner of the mineral rights owns the gas, not the state. There is no obligation to pay a severance moving the gas out of state other than the argument that there is a cost to the state for services and infrastructure that should be compensated.

As far as budgets go, I don't see any connection between the past overspending policies and the gas situation. If anything a severance tax could be looked at as another tax and spend program. So far the gas policies that are in place are essentially the same as the previous administration and state legislature put in place. Even the few changes that have been floated are minor in the broad scheme of things.

 

[franklin]

franklin wrote:

Chaz wrote:
We ARE NOT being compensated for the gas, leases don't begin to address the severance of the gas from Pennsylvania. They only pay the state for the lease with royalties. Non of the gas pumped out of the ground is going to benefit Pennsylvanias, and if the current state of affairs doesn't change we won't see anything to benefit us. The only benefit is to the Government it will aloow the state legislature to continue their policies of over-spending on everything they do and allow the government to expand even more. Provided of course they even make an attempt to balance the state budget.

The state is being compensated the same as private land owners through royalty payments. On private land the owner of the mineral rights owns the gas, not the state. There is no obligation to pay a severance moving the gas out of state other than the argument that there is a cost to the state for services and infrastructure that should be compensated.

As far as budgets go, I don't see any connection between the past overspending policies and the gas situation. If anything a severance tax could be looked at as another tax and spend program. So far the gas policies that are in place are essentially the same as the previous administration and state legislature put in place. Even the few changes that have been floated are minor in the broad scheme of things.

Let me amend my comment above to read "I don't feel there should be any obligation to pay a severance tax....".

I'm don't believe taxes should be enacted just because we can. There should be a justification with some underlying analysis to justify the amount and where the revenues are intended. The proposed taxes are being justified because there is an impact to the state from the extraction. I have not seen any published detailed analysis of these costs. Without that how does anyone know what the amount of tax should be to cover any costs and where revenues should be dedicated?

Otherwise it becomes the same tax and spend practice that is getting us into fiscal problems. It's just a pot of money that politicians are going after to get a slice and plans put forth to divide the plunder in ways to gain political support for the effort.

Consumers ultimately pay these taxes. Broadly applied they raise market rates which drive up the cost of natural gas and electricity.

 

[JackM]

The taxes should be charged based upon the "going rate" so to speak. In other words, if we can have industry at 5%, 6% or 7%, then charge the 7%. Look to other states, the unique issues with drilling here in PA and then "price" the tax as the market will bear. If the tax generates more money than needed to fund compliance, regulation, oversight, and remediation, then I see no reason any surplus could not be used to fund education, community development, senior citizens or any other worthwhile public projects.