But Mr. Devaney’s report makes it clear that he still has a long way to go
to change the agency’s
dysfunctional culture.
Speaking of dysfunctional....
John Mica
"Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric":
Published: September 28, 2007
A yearlong investigation has now provided unassailable evidence that the Interior Department abdicated its responsibility to collect royalties from oil and gas companies that drill on public lands, chiefly the Gulf of Mexico. The report increases the pressure on Congress to find a way to recover the money. It also increases the pressure on Dirk Kempthorne, the interior secretary, to accelerate his reforms of the Minerals Management Service, the agency that failed to collect the royalties.
Midlevel federal officials found the loophole in 2000, but nothing was done to close it or collect the lost revenues until 2006.
It has already cost taxpayers more than $1.5 billion, a figure that could rise to $10 billion over the course of the leases.
The Interior Department has been hammered by Congress, but the strongest criticism has come from the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, whose final report was disclosed by Edmund L. Andrews in The Times on Monday. The report attributed the agency’s failure not so much to ineptitude as to lazy management, ethical lapses and a culture of secrecy that hid mistakes.
Top officials at the agency also seemed more concerned about the fortunes of the industry they were supposed to regulate than those of the federal government. In one case turned up by Mr. Devaney, officials decided it would impose a “hardship” on oil companies to demand that they calculate the back interest they owed. Officials were also said to have blocked efforts by four departmental auditors to recover the unpaid royalties.
Congress is now in a mood to recover the money on its own. A provision in the House energy bill would charge companies that refuse to amend the flawed leases a separate fee for each barrel of oil that they produce in the future. A Senate proposal would impose a surtax on new oil pumped by the companies involved that would be offset by any overdue royalties they were willing to pay.
Mr. Kempthorne has made personnel changes at the top of the Minerals Management Service.
But Mr. Devaney’s report makes it clear that he still has a long way to go
to change the agency’s
dysfunctional culture.
Speaking of dysfunctional....
John Mica
"Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric":
Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.
Proponents support voting YES because:
This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the Tax Code, and they are hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.
It is time to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new era in the management of our public energy resources.
Drill-happy Mica VOTED NO
Drill-happy Mica casts oil-spill blame? Not slick
Scott Maxwell
TAKING NAMES
10:33 PM EDT, May 25, 2010
Of all the people assigning blame for the massive oil spill in the gulf,
it's awfully strange that one of them is John Mica.
John Mica — the most drill-happy congressman Florida has ever elected.
John Mica — the guy who told me a few years ago:
"I voted to drill in the Everglades in the 1970s …and I'd do it again."
John Mica
— the only member of Florida's congressional delegation unwilling to sign a letter in 2003 that called for drilling restrictions in the eastern gulf.
John Mica — whose brother runs the Florida Petroleum Council.
Yes, that John Mica.
In fact, the Winter Park Republican is not only looking to cast blame, he's pretty sure he's found the culprit: Barack Obama.
At a hearing last week, Mica presented his timeline for what he called "The Obama Oil Spill."
Not the British Petroleum Oil Spill, mind you. In fact, Mica went so far as to say: "I am not going to point fingers at BP, the private industry, when it is government's responsibility to set the standards, to do the inspections."
Apparently, big government wasn't big enough.
And why blame the company that actually ran the rig when you can blame the head of the opposing political party?
To tell the truth, I absolutely believe that officials in the Obama administration are partly to blame. The rotating door of lobbyists-turned-regulators has become part of Washington's culture. It's engrained in both parties. And it's repulsive.
In fact, word is already starting to leak out that some of these supposed regulators accepted trips, gifts and meals from the very oil companies they were supposed to be regulating.
Those folks should be force-fed tar balls till they choke.
But, all that said, it takes some Cirque du Soleil-style acrobatics to blame the current administration for this blowout without also blaming the company that actually let it happen — and the politicians like Mica who cheer-led drilling every step of the way.
That's like pushing to build a playground in the middle of an eight-lane highway — and then acting surprised when a kid finally gets hit by a car … and blaming the highway patrol for not preventing it.
And that's one of the problems with the deflection game Mica is trying to play: It's so absurd, he looks foolish trying to play it.
Until now, Mica has been so unapologetic and unabashed about his passion for drilling, it was actually refreshing.
There was no hiding behind anyone else or excuses. He stood tall and proud — often alone.
But now that something has gone wrong — just as many predicted — Mica isn't standing quite so close to the plate.
In chatting with him Tuesday, he remained as drill-committed as ever. Asked whether the recent catastrophe had muted his enthusiasm for drilling, he quickly responded: "No. Absolutely not."
"When we had the Exxon Valdez, we didn't stop transporting."
But you know what, congressman? We also blamed Exxon.
Mica actually said he blamed more than just the current administration. He said the problems started under George W. Bush — when many of the deepwater leases were first granted and when many of the current officials were hired — and that he'd given that administration grief in the past, too. Mica said he still does.
But much of that balance was lost when Mica unveiled his "Obama Oil Spill Timeline."
And if you probe a little deeper, that seems intentional.
At one point during our discussion, when asking whether it was really fair to place the blame on the White House — and not even the oil company involved
— Mica shot back:
"Well, they gave Bush holy hell for Katrina after only four or five days."
Florida Bay's ecology on the brink of collapse
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused over
9 million gallons of oil
to be spilled into the
Gulf of Mexico in
2005.
Is that was this is really all about?
Trying to turn BP's blowout into Obama's Katrina?
As I said before, I think there's a lot of blame to go around — from current regulators to BP, neither one of which seems able to clean up their own mess.
But anyone who thinks the politicians who've been leading the drill-baby-drill cheers aren't at the center of this oil slick as well needs a reality check.
Scott Maxwell can be reached at smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-6141.
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.
Proponents support voting YES because:
This amendment would preserve the longstanding moratorium so important to coastal States. The amendment would also preserve the underlying bill's one redeeming feature, the renegotiating of the cash-cow leases now pouring billions of dollars into already stuffed oil industry coffers.
We have only 5% of the world's population, but 30% of the world's automobiles, and we produce 45% of the world's automotive carbon dioxide emissions. This addiction harms our environment, our economy and our national security. This underlying bill attempts to bribe coastal States into drilling off their shores by promising them a lot more money.
Opponents support voting NO because:
For 30 years, opponents of American energy have cloaked their arguments in an environmental apocalypse. They have tried to make the argument that no matter what we do, it will destroy the environment.
This amendment takes out all of the energy production. It is a callous disregard for the jobs that have been lost over the last 30 years of following an anti-energy policy. The people who work in oil and gas, their jobs are in the Middle East or Canada. We have exported their jobs. If this amendment passes, we are going to send the rest of them. We should know how important it is to create jobs in this country, to create clean natural gas in this country, so that it can be the bridge to the future. Reference: Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act; Bill H R 4761 ; vote number 2006-354 on Jun 29, 2006
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:
The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America's priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.
About the CAF report, "Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric":
Click here for definitions & background information on Energy & Oil.
Click here for a profile of John Mica.
Click here for HouseMatch answers by John Mica.
Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Energy & Oil in The Forum.
Click here for a summary of John Mica's positions on all issues.
Click here for issue positions of other FL politicians.
DID YOU REALLY THINK
THE OIL LOBBYISTS,
like John Mica's brother,
DON'T OWN
THE DEMOCRATS AS WELL AS THE REPUBLICANS???
SILLY CITIZENS:(
AUGUST 2009
Interior plans offshore drilling despite questions
Democrats
Behind
Latest Drive For Drilling
Sens. Dorgan, Bingaman lead "surprise" proposal
Drilling off Florida's coast won't increase America's independence from foreign oil, lower gasoline prices or raise billions of dollars annually for the state. • Those are among the predictable findings of a new nonpartisan report on offshore drilling commissioned by the Florida Senate president. It is inconceivable that any responsible state lawmaker still would consider leveraging the state's pristine shoreline — and the tourism customers it draws — for such little return. Yet Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Orlando, who is in line to be the next House speaker, is doggedly pushing a plan that could put drilling platforms within 10 miles of the west coast.
The report produced by a Tallahassee think tank offers some of the best information yet to refute the propaganda from an anonymous oil industry group, Florida Energy Associates, that wants Florida's ban lifted. The report shows that the most-generous industry estimates for what Florida could collect from drilling in state and federal waters is far less than $2 billion — the annual amount suggested by the energy group's economist.
The Collins Center for Public Policy produced "Potential Impacts of Oil & Gas Exploration in the Gulf" on behalf of the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, a group set up by the Legislature in 2005 and chaired by former St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker, a Republican. Senate President Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach, asked the commission to take on the issue late last year due to concerns about a lack of neutral information on drilling.
The 40-page report uses a question-and-answer format to address 31 issues that have arisen since Florida Energy Associates began its push last year. It says the risk of a devastating oil spill off Florida's coasts has greatly diminished due to technology and safety precautions since the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. But it also acknowledges the risk remains whether the drilling occurs in state waters close to shore or in the federal waters of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Most striking: Researchers don't think there is even enough oil in state waters to sustain the country's gasoline needs for a week. Advances in seismic technology may make it easier to find natural gas deposits, the report said. But it's not been tested in either the eastern gulf or near Florida. And harvesting natural gas in Florida would displace American-mined coal as a fuel, not foreign oil. The impact on energy costs would be minimal.
The report also states the obvious: Lifting Florida's ban would make it more likely Congress would lift its 2006 ban on the more profitable resources farther out in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which extends as much as 125 miles from Florida's shore. The industry's endgame may be to get the drilling ban in state waters lifted merely to make it impossible to continue with the ban in federal waters.
But the eastern gulf doesn't have nearly the deposits found in the federal waters of the central and western gulf — the areas that benefit Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. And none of those states have received windfalls anywhere close to $2 billion annually from offshore drilling.
If the federal ban was lifted, Florida's annual share of revenues could be as low as $20 million (based on traditional government estimates) to as high as $180 million (based on industry estimates), according to the report. New jobs would number between 1,000 to 2,500.
The report purposely does not estimate revenues from drilling in state waters, except to say they would likely be less than those of other states with greater deposits. Alabama generates the most income from near-shore production: $200 million a year. What does $200 million buy in Florida? Not much compared to a $66 billion state budget. Or compared to the potential risk to the No. 1 industry, tourism.
Supporters of drilling off Florida's shores are evoking a patriotic duty to solve America's dependence on foreign oil. Cannon warns of riots in the streets if Floridians cannot get food because there is no fuel for trucks to deliver to groceries. But these are the facts: The estimated deposits in Florida's state-owned waters aren't even enough to fuel America's needs for a week, and lifting the drilling ban would provide relatively little money for the state. It would open the beaches and the state's tourism industry to additional risk — regardless of new drilling technology.
The Senate has the answers it needs to tell Cannon to forget about drilling.
Drilling in Florida waters
The state owns submerged lands from the coast to 10 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and three miles offshore in the Atlantic Ocean. Here are some statistics that speak to drilling issues.
100 million
Government estimates of barrels of oil in state- owned water
140 million
Barrels of oil the U.S. uses in a week, or 20 million barrels a day
Unknown
What Florida could collect from drilling in state-owned waters, though experts expect less than other gulf states because of geological formations.
$200 million
Average annual amount Alabama collects for drilling in its state-owned waters — the most of any gulf state.
$189 million
Amount the Florida Lottery is expected to raise this year to enhance the state's education offerings
$66 billion
Florida's 2009-2010 state budget
Source: Potential Impacts of Oil & Gas Exploration in the Gulf, Collins Center for Public Policy; 2009 Florida General Appropriations Act (SB 2600)
Obama budget rescinds energy industry tax breaks
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
– Thu May 7, 2009 8:48 pm ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama outlined a budget plan Thursday that would end $26 billion in oil and gas industry tax breaks, point to a new direction for dealing with nuclear waste and shift government aggressively toward helping to develop renewable energy sources.
Obama called the tax break to the oil and gas industry "unjustifiable loopholes" in the tax system that in most cases other companies do not get.
Why isn’t
Because
“Some People” are Pennywise
and Future $tupid
Congress left for the August recess deadlocked over how to address $4-a-gallon gasoline. Democratic proposals to tap the nation's petroleum reserve, curb oil speculation and force oil companies to drill on already leased federal lands were blocked by Republicans trying to force votes on offshore drilling. Yet any vote on drilling is likely to force the Republicans' hand, since it will likely be packaged with unpopular?!?!! proposals to tap the petroleum reserve
and
recoup
unpaid
royalties
from the late 1990s
to pay for
renewable energy projects.
The week before Christmas in
OUR
Senate
"Unintended"
Loophole in Energy Bill
will cost the
Nation's solar industry plenty
but Senators want to keep it- intentionally this time
Lessons from The Political Process ( a good read)
One thing you learn in Washington, D.C., is that politics is never predictable.
The Interior Department is under fire for other problems in the royalty program as well.
It is struggling without much success to correct leasing mistakes
that could allow oil companies
to escape $10 billion in royalties
over the next decade or so.
''There's hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars out there,
and I don't think we should be scared of the oil companies,''
said Bobby L. Maxwell,
a former senior auditor who,
as a private citizen,
sued the Kerr-McGee Corporation,
claiming it
intentionally cheated
the
government
of royalties for oil and gas
it produced in the Gulf of Mexico.
Ex-Auditor Says He Was Told to Be Lax on Oil Fees (March 29, 2007) Another Energy Inquiry On Royalties Collection (February 16, 2007)"As we all know, Florida is one of the sunniest places in America,
but this is the sort of thing,
if they can prove it works(??!!??),
in sunny places all over the world,"
Clinton said.
OH NOOOOooooo!!!
About a decade ago,
while "Mr. Bill",
aka former President Clinton.
allowing oil companies to
duck royalties due
on oil drilled on federal lands,
while taking advantage
of a starry eyed intern
while dishonoring his marriage
and America yet again-
Our local Elected leaders hatched plans
for transforming about
1,800 acres along Interstate 4 in southwest Volusia County
Osteen NOT divided about it's future;
But OUR "heavily lobbyied"
Imagine this on S.R. 415 and/or S.R. 46 instead of the
planned by the land owning lobbyists in
OUR CITY AND COUNTY government!!!
President Bush's economic stimulus plan would put $800 in the pocket of almost every taxpayer. Given that Congress is pretty much on the same page, why isn't that prospect buoying everyone's hopes?
Maybe one reason is that Wall Street and consumers alike realize that unless oil prices drop significantly
--which may well happen if we fall into a recession--
many will be emptying that newfound stash just to pay for the increase in gasoline and other energy prices this year.
Let's use the most recent predictions of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which was presuming (at least, as of January 8) that the economy would continue to grow and that the price of oil would fall somewhat--to an average of $87 a barrel this year. EIA has been conservative, estimating a year ago that the 2007 oil price would be $64.42 per barrel when it turned out to be $72. EIA now predicts that the average price for gasoline in 2008 will be $3.14 a gallon, up about 12 percent over last year. That would mean that the average U.S. household with two cars, which consumes 1,143 gallons of gasoline, will be paying about $377 more for gasoline. That's nearly half of the money that Uncle Sam would be handing over to one taxpayer in the hopes of spurring consumer spending.
But the bite could be far bigger for some. Households that use heating oil--a small percentage nationwide but a significant number in the Middle Atlantic and New England states--are paying on average $560 more this year than last year to get through the winter. Even a recession (and lower oil prices) won't help; that money is already out the door. For an average two-car household that uses heating oil, then, one entire proposed economic stimulus payment is on track to be spent just paying this year's premium on oil and gasoline. And let's hope there's another taxpayer in the house, because higher fuel costs would eat up 17 percent of the second wage earner's economic stimulus check, too.
If you're in the 58 percent of households that heat with natural gas, you may feel you've dodged a bullet, because you are paying only $70 more for heat over last year. But what if your two cars happen to be--and this is not an unusual combination in the suburbs--a Chevy Suburban that gets about 15 miles per gallon and a BMW sedan that gets 19 mpg? If you drive an average amount, divided evenly between the two vehicles, it's expected that you'll spend $453 more for gasoline in 2008. In that household, about 65 percent of one taxpayer's economic stimulus cash would be going to pay for the increase in energy prices.
Of course, the wild card, as mentioned, is whether an economic slowdown could trigger a major energy price drop. That's what has happened in the past, but the oil market's gyrations suggest that it isn't a given. Oil initially fell more than $3 per barrel to just over $87 on recession worries, but when the Federal Reserve cut interest rates today, the price began to climb again. That's because investors seek out commodities like oil as a hedge against inflation, which they fear the Fed could trigger as it tries to head off recession.
Let's use the most recent predictions of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which was presuming (at least, as of January 8) that the economy would continue to grow and that the price of oil would fall somewhat--to an average of $87 a barrel this year. EIA has been conservative, estimating a year ago that the 2007 oil price would be $64.42 per barrel when it turned out to be $72. EIA now predicts that the average price for gasoline in 2008 will be $3.14 a gallon, up about 12 percent over last year. That would mean that the average U.S. household with two cars, which consumes 1,143 gallons of gasoline, will be paying about $377 more for gasoline. That's nearly half of the money that Uncle Sam would be handing over to one taxpayer in the hopes of spurring consumer spending.
But the bite could be far bigger for some. Households that use heating oil--a small percentage nationwide but a significant number in the Middle Atlantic and New England states--are paying on average $560 more this year than last year to get through the winter. Even a recession (and lower oil prices) won't help; that money is already out the door. For an average two-car household that uses heating oil, then, one entire proposed economic stimulus payment is on track to be spent just paying this year's premium on oil and gasoline. And let's hope there's another taxpayer in the house, because higher fuel costs would eat up 17 percent of the second wage earner's economic stimulus check, too.
If you're in the 58 percent of households that heat with natural gas, you may feel you've dodged a bullet, because you are paying only $70 more for heat over last year. But what if your two cars happen to be--and this is not an unusual combination in the suburbs--a Chevy Suburban that gets about 15 miles per gallon and a BMW sedan that gets 19 mpg? If you drive an average amount, divided evenly between the two vehicles, it's expected that you'll spend $453 more for gasoline in 2008. In that household, about 65 percent of one taxpayer's economic stimulus cash would be going to pay for the increase in energy prices.
Of course, the wild card, as mentioned, is whether an economic slowdown could trigger a major energy price drop. That's what has happened in the past, but the oil market's gyrations suggest that it isn't a given. Oil initially fell more than $3 per barrel to just over $87 on recession worries, but when the Federal Reserve cut interest rates today, the price began to climb again. That's because investors seek out commodities like oil as a hedge against inflation, which they fear the Fed could trigger as it tries to head off recession.
But put aside the future, with all its unpredictability. Up to now, a good number of economists had come to believe that the economy could simply shrug off high energy prices. But the reality is that the average U.S. household, which paid about $1,500 for gasoline in 2001, had to fork over more than $3,200 in 2007 for the very same product--a bonanza for the oil-producing states and big oil companies but for few others. If the tables now turn and the economy begins to suffer, how many economists Let's use the most recent predictions of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which was presuming (at least, as of January 8) that the economy would continue to grow and that the price of oil would fall somewhat--to an average of $87 a barrel this year. EIA has been conservative, estimating a year ago that the 2007 oil price would be $64.42 per barrel when it turned out to be $72. EIA now predicts that the average price for gasoline in 2008 will be $3.14 a gallon, up about 12 percent over last year. That would mean that the average U.S. household with two cars, which consumes 1,143 gallons of gasoline, will be paying about $377 more for gasoline. That's nearly half of the money that Uncle Sam would be handing over to one taxpayer in the hopes of spurring consumer spending.
But the bite could be far bigger for some. Households that use heating oil--a small percentage nationwide but a significant number in the Middle Atlantic and New England states--are paying on average $560 more this year than last year to get through the winter. Even a recession (and lower oil prices) won't help; that money is already out the door. For an average two-car household that uses heating oil, then, one entire proposed economic stimulus payment is on track to be spent just paying this year's premium on oil and gasoline. And let's hope there's another taxpayer in the house, because higher fuel costs would eat up 17 percent of the second wage earner's economic stimulus check, too.
If you're in the 58 percent of households that heat with natural gas, you may feel you've dodged a bullet, because you are paying only $70 more for heat over last year. But what if your two cars happen to be--and this is not an unusual combination in the suburbs--a Chevy Suburban that gets about 15 miles per gallon and a BMW sedan that gets 19 mpg? If you drive an average amount, divided evenly between the two vehicles, it's expected that you'll spend $453 more for gasoline in 2008. In that household, about 65 percent of one taxpayer's economic stimulus cash would be going to pay for the increase in energy prices.
Of course, the wild card, as mentioned, is whether an economic slowdown could trigger a major energy price drop. That's what has happened in the past, but the oil market's gyrations suggest that it isn't a given. Oil initially fell more than $3 per barrel to just over $87 on recession worries, but when the Federal Reserve cut interest rates today, the price began to climb again. That's because investors seek out commodities like oil as a hedge against inflation, which they fear the Fed could trigger as it tries to head off recession.
But put aside the future, with all its unpredictability. Up to now, a good number of economists had come to believe that the economy could simply shrug off high energy prices. But the reality is that the average U.S. household, which paid about $1,500 for gasoline in 2001, had to fork over more than $3,200 in 2007 for the very same product--a bonanza for the oil-producing states and big oil companies but for few others. If the tables now turn and the economy begins to suffer, how many economists won't blame, in part, the drain of paying more each year for oil?prices.
But the reality is that the average U.S. household, which paid about $1,500 for gasoline in 2001, had to fork over more than $3,200 in 2007 for the very same product--a bonanza for the oil-producing states and big oil companies but for few others. If the tables now turn and the economy begins to suffer, how many economists won't blame, in part, the drain of paying more each year for oil?
Within 30 days