Skip to comments.
States to lose $415 million in oil and gas royalties over decade from budget deal(Mnt. West States)
Newser ^
Posted on 12/21/2013 10:51:45 AM PST by Red Steel
Budget deal cuts oil and gas royalties to states
The budget deal in Congress will cost Wyoming, New Mexico and other states $415 million in lost oil and gas royalties over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Legislation implementing the agreement makes permanent an effective 51-49 percent split that favors the federal government in dividing the 12.5 percent royalty collected from energy companies on oil and gas production on federal land. Until 2008 when the Interior Department began setting aside 2 percent of the royalties as an administrative fee, the split between the federal and state government had been 50-50. The administrative fee, renewed several times by Congress, had been scheduled to expire in January.
The government last year paid $2.1 billion to 35 states under the royalties-splitting program for on-shore oil and gas production on federal lands. The largest payments went to five Western states: Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and California.
Returning to the effective 50-50 split would have provided Wyoming an extra $19 million next year and nearly $200 million over the next decade. New Mexico would have collected an additional $10 million next year and Utah $2.8 million.
While supporting the budget deal, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said making the 51-49 split on royalties permanent "has an extremely negative impact, primarily on the Mountain West."
(Excerpt) Read more at newser.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; Government; US: Colorado; US: New Mexico; US: Utah; US: Wyoming
KEYWORDS: kakistocracy; moneygrab; uniparty
Boehner: you got to pass it before you see what's in it.
1
posted on
12/21/2013 10:51:45 AM PST
by
Red Steel
To: Red Steel
Article by MATTHEW DALY Dec 18, 2013 3:47 PM CST
2
posted on
12/21/2013 10:52:53 AM PST
by
Red Steel
To: Red Steel
Ryan and the establishment are not going to have a banner new year. Add to it, this Bishop guy can’t have it both ways. Everyone who voted for this piece of crap are now openly talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Maybe it has come to the point that filing deadlines have passed for true (little r) republican challengers.
3
posted on
12/21/2013 10:58:46 AM PST
by
mazda77
To: Red Steel
Until 2008
Who was president in 2008? The same guy who abolished civil liberties and established a police state, wasn't it? They guy that said we couldn't fly while allowing Saudis to fly around the country in chartered jets?
Tell me again why I'm supposed to vote for any Republican on the ballot?
4
posted on
12/21/2013 11:20:09 AM PST
by
PAR35
To: Red Steel
Makes you wonder when one of the states will decide to make it a 100-0 split.
5
posted on
12/21/2013 11:21:44 AM PST
by
RKBA Democrat
(Getting some small say in who will get to hold the whip doesn't make you any less a slave.)
To: Red Steel
Legislation implementing the agreement makes permanent an effective 51-49 percent split that favors the federal government in dividing the 12.5 percent royalty collected from energy companies on oil and gas production on federal land. Until 2008 when the Interior Department began setting aside 2 percent of the royalties as an administrative fee, the split between the federal and state government had been 50-50. The administrative fee, renewed several times by Congress, had been scheduled to expire in January.
The part in bold is key. This is a revenue split between the feds and the respective state governments on BLM land within a given state, where said land is owned in fee by the federal government. In each township, two sections (usually Sections 2 and 36) were granted to the states in fee by the U.S. government, and those sections are held by the states today (unless the state has issued patents for them to private parties).
Does the federal government share in the royalties arising from mineral production on state lands? Not that I'm aware of. But the feds apparently share royalty revenues from federal lands with the host state, which is compensation for so much of the tax base in that state being off the tax rolls because it's publicly owned.
The point being...under common law, a party who owns real estate is entitled to the benefit of any income derived therefrom. That owner is not obligated to share that income with anyone else, although he/she could do it if so motivated. I'm not sure the feds have any obligation to share royalties from federal lands with the host states, but they do so in the interest of equity.
It's as if these state governments view 50% of the federal lands as being owned by theem, not the Feds. They're already collecting 49% of the royalty revenue attributable to federal lands that they do not own under an existing policy, and they're whining about it not being a full 50%.
6
posted on
12/21/2013 11:23:08 AM PST
by
Milton Miteybad
(I am Jim Thompson. {Really.})
To: MileHi; dhs12345; neverdem; ColoCowgirl; RandallFlagg; dynachrome; beaversmom; Balata; bboop; ...
Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
7
posted on
12/21/2013 11:41:29 AM PST
by
george76
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
To: Red Steel
Gradually, inexorably, state and local governments in myriad ways, some small and hidden, are being deprived of revenue sources and thus rendered incapable and ineffective in providing even basic and necessary public services.
The Federal Office of the Chief Executive is to be solely in control.
8
posted on
12/21/2013 12:23:11 PM PST
by
Elsiejay
To: PAR35
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson