The Left's War Against 'Big Oil' Continues

The economic impact of the 1995 Deep Water Royalty Relief Act is huge as are the consequences that would result from its modification or repeal by Congress.

Officials at the American Petroleum Institute say they understood from the beginning that the 1995 Deep Water Royalty Relief Act was a smart piece of legislation that created the opportunity for domestic energy production, jobs and economic activity. Today, however, it appears that legislation is in peril, an apparent target in the Left's ongoing war against "Big Oil."

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) -- of Waxman-Markey fame -- seems to be leading the charge to penalize the companies that risked billions. In a statement issued Feb. 1, he put his ignorance about the matters at hand on full display: "Instead of oil companies drilling for free on public land, we should be drilling for deficit dollars by fixing this taxpayer rip-off.”

If Congressman Markey and his anti-energy independence colleagues succeed in changing the rules in the middle of the game, companies who refuse to pay royalties that were legally waived in the 1995 law will be locked out of future leases. Energy prices will rise. The nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy will increase. And all Americans will pay the price.

Though they were not presented in direct opposition to Markey, two new studies cited by officials with API during a media conference call early this afternoon show how the 1995 Act benefits the nation. According to API:

A study by Advanced Resources International sought to determine the number of deep water leases awarded between 1996 and 2000 under the Act, and the production volumes and expenditures related to those leases. By looking at Minerals Management Service data, researchers found that the 3,391 deep water leases awarded during that time produced $3.1 billion in bonuses for the U.S. government.

Using industry and federal government average drilling and lifting costs, ARI researchers calculated that companies spent $37.4 billion to develop the wells that were drilled. Again using government data, ARI estimated that the companies paid more than $5 billion in taxes. The report also shows that the leases resulted in the production of more than 400 million barrels of oil and more than 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

An IHS Global Insight study looked at the economic impact of producing oil and natural gas from Outer Continental Shelf leases under the 1995 Act. The IHS study determined that real gross domestic product increased by an average of $4.5 billion per year as a result of oil and natural gas production from these leases and that employment increased by 91,000 jobs in 2005.

Apparently realizing they have at least two more years of working with the Obama Administration, API officials wisely focused on highlighting the benefits realized via the 1995 Act instead of attacking Congressman Markey.

"(The 1995 Act) is probably one of the best, if not the best, pieces of energy policy ever passed in the United States," said John Felmy, chief economist at API, a group that represents some 400 companies in the oil and natural gas industry. His statement makes sense when one considers that the goal of the 1995 Act was to encourage oil and natural gas production in risky and prohibitively expensive Gulf of Mexico deep water areas by providing temporary relief from royalties.

Felmy's colleague, API Upstream Director Erik Milito, agreed, saying, “Americans have benefited greatly from this Act, and it should be seen as a clear success."

Unlike Felmy and Milito, you need not be measured in your opposition to Congressman Markey.

If you oppose higher energy prices and greater dependence on foreign sources of energy, CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., TODAY (including Congressman Markey), and let them know where you stand.

It's so much better, over all, for drilling to take place on federal land royalty free. Cheap gas prices, more jobs, more investment, everyone wins.

Otherwise, drillers are forced to look at leasing private parcels on top of shales, and it creates a mess for existing communities when the drillers and landmen come through and try to create an operational framework. It's not fun having a well in your backyard, having your streets torn up, having the NOX and HRVOX levels jump in your community, having your foundation screwed up, all in the name of helping America achieve "energy independence." The "royalty" is a pittance for a 60X100 plot, and it's a lot more expensive overall for the drillers. Hard working homeowners lose property value, gas prices go up, and it's a big fat mess.

But hey, we have to protect the friggen' caraboo, right?

Don't let them jack with these leases, folks.

How soon they forget...or ignore.

Big oil??? AL GORE

The Inconvenient Truth Al Gore Hopes You Forget!

So, I wake up this morning to hear Al Gore has won an Oscar for trying to save the world!

Then I went out and shoveled 18” of his global warming out of my driveway.

First question: Why didn’t he do anything to try to save the environment during his 8 years as Vice President and how many years as a senator?

Some say the Vice President has no power, can’t make policy, blah, blah.

Next question: Then why was he able to pull off selling one of our few oil reserves at Elk Hills in California to his big oil buddies at the expense of the environment and fuel reserves. This story was widely reported, but that was 10 years ago. How soon we forget.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

[snip]Occidental’s planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn’t only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk [Indian tribe}. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy’s plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.

Gore recommended that the Elk Hills be sold as part of his 1995 “Reinventing Government” National Performance Review program. Gore-confidant (and former campaign manager) Tony Cohelo served on the board of directors of the private company hired to assess the sale’s environmental consequences. The sale was a windfall for Oxy. Within weeks of the announced purchase Occidental stock rose ten percent.

That was good news for Gore. Despite controversy over Dick Cheney’s plans to keep stock options if elected, most Americans don’t know that we already have a vice president with oil company stocks. Before the Elk Hills sale, Al Gore controlled between $250,000-$500,000 of Occidental stock (he is executor of a trust that he says goes only to his mother, but will revert to him upon her death). After the sale, Gore began disclosing between $500,000 and $1 million of his significantly more valuable stock.

Nowhere is Al Gore’s environmental hypocrisy more glaring than when it comes to his relationship with Occidental. While on the one hand talking tough about his “big oil” opponents and waxing poetic about indigenous peoples in his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” the Elk Hills sale and other deals show that money has always been more important to Al Gore than ideals.

http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=elk+hills+al+gore

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.