Do the people living in the states that produce oil domestically deserve a cut of the profits?

If memeory serves....Alaskans get money for the oil in Alaska while I believe that the people of Louisiana do not get a cut of the oil harvested in the gulf.





Should the citizens of the states that produce financially benefit from the harvesting of the natural resources of their states?Do the people living in the states that produce oil domestically deserve a cut of the profits?
In the 1950s, Texas Governor Allen Shivers hammered out a hell of a good deal when it comes to drilling for oil offshore the coast of Texas. He made sure that Texas received its' part of the profits.





Meanwhile, Louisiana didn't cut such and deal and now they are stuck with thousands of miles of coastal dead zones due to off shore drilling.Do the people living in the states that produce oil domestically deserve a cut of the profits?
No, not really. There is a reason for the Alaskans getting a share of the revenue. It goes back to the history weather the pipeline and the exploration was going to happen or not. There were enviormental challenges that needed to be met. That was all part of the agreement. Remember, all that did not come about until the mid-seventies. There has been oil in Louisiana for generations.
Reduced property taxes and reduced sales taxes in areas where schools, firefighters and law enforcement receive more revenue from oil than from taxes are tantamount to a cut of the profits.
If so New Orleans should get one hell of a cut, but they say its offshore, so they keep the peoples hands off the money..its all a crock ...