« Georgie Porgie. | Main | Wodehouse Quotation Machine. »
February 14, 2006
Oil and Gas Royalties.
Ooooh, tee hee hee. You know how disgustingly beholden to the oil and gas lobby the Bush Administration is? And how appalling it is that those companies are pulling up fuels at massive profits without paying the royalties? Got to be, just gotta be the influence of the Halliburtonchimpymcsmirkcheneyshootalaywer crew, doesn’t it?
Err, no. Clinton actually.
The federal government is on the verge of one of the biggest giveaways
of oil and gas in American history, worth an estimated $7 billion over
five years.
New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published
budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump
about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory
over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
...
But what seemed like modest incentives 10 years ago have ballooned to
levels that have alarmed even ardent supporters of the oil and gas
industry, partly because of added sweeteners approved during the
Clinton administration but also because of ambiguities in the law that
energy companies have successfully exploited in court.
...
The original law, known as the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, had bipartisan support and was intended to promote exploration and production in deep waters of the outer continental shelf.
At the time, oil and gas prices were comparatively low and few companies were interested in the high costs and high risks of drilling in water thousands of feet deep.
The law authorized the Interior Department, which leases out tens of millions of acres in the Gulf of Mexico, to forgo its normal 12 percent royalty for much of the oil and gas produced in very deep waters.
Because it take years to
explore and then build the huge offshore platforms, most of the oil and
gas from the new leases is just beginning to flow.
...
Administration officials say the issue is out of their hands, adding
that they opposed provisions in last year's energy bill that added new
royalty relief for deep drilling in shallow waters.
...
In general, the Interior Department has always insisted that companies would not be entitled to royalty relief if market prices for oil and gas climbed above certain trigger points.
Those trigger points — currently about $35 a barrel for oil and $4 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas — have been exceeded for the last several years and are likely to stay that way for the rest of the decade.
So why is the amount of royalty-free gas and oil expected to double over the next five years?
The biggest reason is that the Clinton administration, apparently worried about the continued lack of interest in new drilling, waived the price triggers for all leases awarded in 1998 and 1999.
Be interesting to see how this issue is spun in the near future.
February 14, 2006 in Taxes | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d834a96ab669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oil and Gas Royalties.:
Comments
Oh, I think we know how this will be spun. One unidentified "commentator" on PBS has already blamed Bush and the Republicans for not repealing the "giveaways".
btw-"...alaywer"????
Posted by: MikeinAppalachia | Feb 14, 2006 6:14:54 PM
The oil companies have spent real money developing those fields ... and they know better than anyone that the current high prices may not last .... price of oil is falling at the mo' ...
You pays your money and you takes your chance.
Anybody brave enough to stake their own money on oil prices not falling back considerably ?
Posted by: johnny bonk | Feb 14, 2006 11:01:05 PM
Anybody brave enough to stake their own money on oil prices not falling back considerably ?
Me for one. And Shell, Exxon, BP, Chevron-Texaco, Total, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, Kuwait Oil Company, Qatar Petroluem...
Posted by: Tim Newman | Feb 15, 2006 6:41:59 AM
The biggest reason is that the Clinton administration, apparently worried about the continued lack of interest in new drilling, waived the price triggers for all leases awarded in 1998 and 1999.
Errr..don't you actually agree with this, Tim?
Tim adds: I’m not worried about the economics of it at the moment, only about how the political blame gets thrown around. But in general, I think that taxation of Ricardian land rents (which this is) is a good idea. And not with short term incentives and breaks as above. There might be occasions when it is a good idea (BP looking for lower royalties on that one field in the N Sea where they want to try carbon sequestration perhaps?) but in general I’m suspicious of manipulation of tax rates to acheive a specific goal.
Posted by: Alex | Feb 15, 2006 9:14:14 AM
"Anybody brave enough to stake their own money on oil prices not falling back considerably ?
Me for one. And Shell, Exxon, BP, Chevron-Texaco, Total, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, Kuwait Oil Company, Qatar Petroluem..."
Are they ? Does anybody know what the threshold value is that the oil majors are prepared to develop a field at. I read in a newspaper (ha ha) that they are still only interested in fields where the extraction cost is less than 20 USD / barrel ... can anybody lend some expert advice?
TN .. "Me for one" .. I'll hold you to that, my friend. (Friendly advice, don't bet the farm).
Posted by: johnny bonk | Feb 17, 2006 2:14:43 AM
