Justin Ruffridge

“If this assumption, let's say on slide 21, from 20— looks like '46 and moving onward, is that there is the assumed, I would say, increase in potential revenue from a corporate income tax, that is only if the entity in question here does not take some of those dollars and let's say they reinvest those things in an export facility expansion, maybe an additional gas line, other sort of areas, all of those potential revenue dollars would have— could disappear. Is that an accurate assumption?”

“if you have an entity who is consistently investing large-scale infrastructure dollars those large investments are always able to, or are usually able to offset any sort of revenue gain from the investment itself. Potentially if they continue to invest infrastructure dollars, you could perpetuate this sort of depre— or I guess lower value of tax paid in perpetuity.— is that an accurate assumption again? Representative Ruffridge, through the chair, yes. So a company that continues to make investments would— the capital investments would have a depreciation schedule and those would reduce the taxes owed.”

“I really would like to know how much the construction cost, because it seems to me to be a large assumption, weighs into what we're going to see here later, particularly on breakeven prices and other areas of, I think, importance to us as we're making decisions. If the construction cost is higher than what this model has assumed, what main areas does that affect in these following slides?”

“I think, Mr. Stickel, you're being generous when you say marginal. If the futures market is $8— and we're assuming a $1.50 upstream gas price and we're probably looking at the plus 20% line or the plus 40% line at— in real terms, none of the items I'm looking at on that screen seem to be even in the definition of marginal. It seems like they don't work.”