Widgets Magazine
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 88

Thread: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

  1. #51
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,632
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Pay at top energy companies in Houston still generally a fair amount higher. But , it is improving in OKC and is part of the reason we are seeing a good in migration at this time.

  2. #52

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    Do you know that or are you just being cynical again? What jobs don't count? Are you accusing them of lying?

    They are claiming to add 150 new jobs and you say they are only Counting the top 150, or 100% of the jobs? That's deceitful? LOL
    I am basing it on my own personal experience with similar programs here in Florida. We didn't count the lower paying jobs because it brought the average down and we only submitted the highest paying jobs for the program. Thinks about it, if they end up creating 151 positions which one do you think they will not report? Answer, the lowest paying one.

  3. #53

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    Pay at top energy companies in Houston still generally a fair amount higher. But , it is improving in OKC and is part of the reason we are seeing a good in migration at this time.
    Not trying to argue with you and I actually agree, but remember cost of living is significantly higher over there.

  4. #54

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by David View Post
    1. The oil & gas industry pays well.
    2. Do you really think the state won't take it's money back if it comes out that the application was made of lies?
    1. Of course it does, but an average of $146k? Sounds quite high for the average, unless they are including Tom Wards salary. Maybe JTF is right in that they arent including administrative jobs in that employee count.
    2. There is no mechanism in place for the state to get back its money if Tapstone didnt hire these folks as long as they said, moved out of state, or just closed up shop. The state makes quarterly cash payments to these companies, so its not as if they are waiting to see if these companies are doing as they promised. Its starts pretty much immediately.

  5. #55

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by onthestrip View Post
    1. Of course it does, but an average of $146k? Sounds quite high for the average, unless they are including Tom Wards salary. Maybe JTF is right in that they arent including administrative jobs in that employee count.
    2. There is no mechanism in place for the state to get back its money if Tapstone didnt hire these folks as long as they said, moved out of state, or just closed up shop. The state makes quarterly cash payments to these companies, so its not as if they are waiting to see if these companies are doing as they promised. Its starts pretty much immediately.
    Even if they only report the 150 highest, that means that they have added AT LEAST 150 high-paying engineering/geology jobs. I don't see how that is something to be cynical about. That's a pretty big number for a new company in an already stretched engineering/geology market (like others have said).

  6. #56

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Just talked to the Mrs about this, she did reporting to send to the state for QJ from her company. She said she ran quarterly reports sorted by salary for several years to determine how much they'd get credited for. It sounded pretty up and up on the program. And also there are 3 seperate types of qualifiers for QJ from small rural companies to large manufacturing to more of executive positions that qualify....just a fyi.

  7. #57

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by PWitty View Post
    Even if they only report the 150 highest, that means that they have added AT LEAST 150 high-paying engineering/geology jobs.
    Correct.

    And this is only paid out on a yearly basis after the companies have submitted proof.


    As I mentioned, the only downside is that jobs can be created and incentives paid, then the jobs can later be eliminated. But that doesn't happen very often and even in the case of Chesapeake, they were so far over the mark in terms of hiring that they probably still would have qualified for the funds even with the layoffs.

    Doesn't look like they are applying this year, though.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,632
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the facts View Post
    I am basing it on my own personal experience with similar programs here in Florida. We didn't count the lower paying jobs because it brought the average down and we only submitted the highest paying jobs for the program. Thinks about it, if they end up creating 151 positions which one do you think they will not report? Answer, the lowest paying one.
    I'm not seeing the problem here or why to be all black helicopter over it. Creating 150 high paying jobs is great. Adding an additional 1 or 20 or 50 not so high paying but market appropriate rates is also good, especially if they aren't getting rebates for those lower paying ones. This isn't a glass half full thing, it is a glass 95% full thing.

    Pete has identified the only possible negative...if they close or shrink later.

  9. #59

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    And even if they close or shrink, those jobs were still paying people for some period of time.

  10. #60

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Correct.

    And this is only paid out on a yearly basis after the companies have submitted proof.


    As I mentioned, the only downside is that jobs can be created and incentives paid, then the jobs can later be eliminated. But that doesn't happen very often and even in the case of Chesapeake, they were so far over the mark in terms of hiring that they probably still would have qualified for the funds even with the layoffs.

    Doesn't look like they are applying this year, though.
    Everything I read says these are quarterly payments, not yearly.

  11. #61

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Yes but are based on annual reports.

  12. #62

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the facts View Post
    I am basing it on my own personal experience with similar programs here in Florida. We didn't count the lower paying jobs because it brought the average down and we only submitted the highest paying jobs for the program. Thinks about it, if they end up creating 151 positions which one do you think they will not report? Answer, the lowest paying one.
    JTF, that is probably the average. That is what oil and gas jobs pay these days.

  13. #63

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    I wasn't being negative. Tapstone is asking for rebates on 150 jobs whose average is north of $140,000. That doesn't mean they only plan to create 150 jobs. They might be planning on 200 jobs but capped it at 150 to make sure they meet the target - and they are going to submit the top 150 paying jobs for reimbursement. That is not being negative, that is just stating how the program works. Alas, if you perceive that as being negative then.... ah, never mind, there is already a thread on that.

  14. #64

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Wow now he wants a handout from the city. Uh, no? Hell no.

  15. #65

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    I believe it is from the state's quality jobs fund. ^

  16. #66

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by catch22 View Post
    I believe it is from the state's quality jobs fund. ^
    I thought it was the states QJ fund until I read Steve's story in the DOK today. It is from the same fund that the city helped lure Continental Resources with.

  17. #67

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Actually, Steve's article contained this bit which will just further the confusion:

    If the application is approved, Tapstone would be the second company employing more than 150 employees to establish a new headquarters downtown since the city’s job incentives program was started six years ago.
    The money that Tapstone is seeking is from the CITY'S Strategic Investment Program (SIP). It has absolutely zero to do with downtown, other than downtown being within the city limits. There are about 30 companies participating (Chesapeake, Paycom, Terex, Boeing, Baker Hughes, etc.) in this program and only a few of them are downtown.

    Also, Tapstone was already downtown and presently only employs 35; they are merely planning to ADD 150 new jobs to that over the next five years. They won't receive incentives for the existing jobs.

    There can be other incentives (like part of the Devon TIF for companies who move downtown) and others from the state and beyond. But that is completely separate from what we are discussing here with Tapstone and I am not aware of them applying for anything other than the SIP funds.


    Oklahoma City's groundbreaking Strategic Investment Program (SIP) is a discretionary incentive fund designed to help companies that are looking to expand or locate their operations in Oklahoma City. The SIP is similar to the state's well-known Quality Jobs Program in that it provides qualifying companies who meet certain annual wage and new payroll / employment thresholds with cash payments.

    Strategic Investment Program Highlights:
    • Incentive analysis for projects based on wage and minimum job threshold
    • Companies must be located in Oklahoma City
    • Companies must hire a minimum of 50 full-time employees, produce an annual payroll of $1.75 million and meet specific average wage requirements.
    Greater Oklahoma City Economic Development - Strategic Investment Program (SIP)

  18. #68

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the facts View Post
    I wasn't being negative. Tapstone is asking for rebates on 150 jobs whose average is north of $140,000. That doesn't mean they only plan to create 150 jobs. They might be planning on 200 jobs but capped it at 150 to make sure they meet the target - and they are going to submit the top 150 paying jobs for reimbursement. That is not being negative, that is just stating how the program works. Alas, if you perceive that as being negative then.... ah, never mind, there is already a thread on that.
    I am not as sure on the state version but the city one which was at least partially based on the state one is based on average salaries created, they would not get to pick and choose which positions affects the program's numbers.

  19. #69

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Sure Tapstone will get to pick which jobs they get to submit. How is the City going to know who they hire and how much they get paid unless Tapstone tells them?

  20. #70

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Is this personal against Tom Ward?

    If Catch22 Enterprises got funding together to start a new E&P company, located in OKC, decided to renovate (or lease space) in a newly renovated old warehouse in Bricktown, and promise to add upwards of 150 jobs at around $145,000 a year; would anyone complain?

    This is a good jobs add.

  21. #71

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the facts View Post
    Sure Tapstone will get to pick which jobs they get to submit. How is the City going to know who they hire and how much they get paid unless Tapstone tells them?
    Because they have to submit payroll reports, the same ones that go to the government reporting agencies for social security and other taxes.

  22. #72

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    Quote Originally Posted by catch22 View Post
    Is this personal against Tom Ward?

    If Catch22 Enterprises got funding together to start a new E&P company, located in OKC, decided to renovate (or lease space) in a newly renovated old warehouse in Bricktown, and promise to add upwards of 150 jobs at around $145,000 a year; would anyone complain?

    This is a good jobs add.
    I'm not sure about JTF, but for me it's more of just bringing to the attention of people and questioning whether these things are beneficial and produce more than they cost. Right now there is no study or quantifiable results of these corporate assistance programs. We have no idea if they are beneficial other than everyone's guesses. It has nothing to do with Ward for me, it's not like this is the only time I've questioned corporate welfare programs.

  23. #73

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    ^

    These types of programs are particularly questionable when they are merely paying millions to companies like Chesapeake who were going to add the jobs anyway.

    Continental was a little different because they moved to OKC from elsewhere, but they are the exception.

    BTW, Ed Shadid has raised this very point when these proposals ultimately reach City Council for approval.

  24. #74

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    I have nothing against Tom Ward. I am still hoping he can financially back auto racing in downtown OKC. I am not even opposed to offering incentives to bringing companies downtown from the suburbs. However, this company is already downtown and they want reimbursement for jobs they are going to create in downtown OKC anyhow. If we go down this path where does it end? I would rather use this money to make downtown a place people WANT to be not where they are BRIBED to be.

  25. #75

    Default Re: Tapstone Energy (Tom Ward)

    While I certainly and understand that point of view. (And don't disagree with it at all) Unless there was specific language outlining who is eligible for the program and its benefits; it would probably be illegal to NOT grant it; provided they met the other requirements.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ward 1 Heiple v. Gallagher
    By Jersey Boss in forum Norman
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2013, 07:26 PM
  2. What is it with Ward 5's Brian Walters?
    By metro in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 07:17 AM
  3. Montgomery Ward
    By Soonerman in forum Tulsa & Suburbs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 11:49 PM
  4. Montgomery Ward still in business
    By Patrick in forum Businesses & Employers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2004, 10:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO