Yet More Corporate Welfare - Cat Forum : Cat Discussion Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-14-2006, 03:54 PM Thread Starter
Cat Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 2,010
Yet More Corporate Welfare

This makes me want to weep

U.S. Has Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/busin ... ?th&emc=th

judy
"Where am I going and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
pookie769 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-14-2006, 05:11 PM
Cat
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: BMore, MD
Posts: 201
Can you copy and paste the text? I don't want to have to create a log in.

Thanks

You say revolution, I say jah. --O.A.R.

Dell and the two cats, Isabella and Hermione plus 5 amazing dogs
mdmenagerie is offline  
post #3 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-14-2006, 05:32 PM Thread Starter
Cat Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 2,010
Here's page 1 of 2:
NOTE: red highlights are mine.

U.S. Has Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: February 14, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — 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.



Royalty-Free Oil and Gas 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.

Based on the administration figures, the government will give up more than $7 billion in payments between now and 2011. The companies are expected to get the largess, known as royalty relief, even though the administration assumes that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout that period.

Administration officials say that the benefits are dictated by laws and regulations that date back to 1996, when energy prices were relatively low and Congress wanted to encourage more exploration and drilling in the high-cost, high-risk deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

"We need to remember the primary reason that incentives are given," said Johnnie M. Burton, director of the federal Minerals Management Service. "It's not to make more money, necessarily. It's to make more oil, more gas, because production of fuel for our nation is essential to our economy and essential to our people."

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.

Short of imposing new taxes on the industry, there may be little Congress can do to reverse its earlier giveaways. The new projections come at a moment when President Bush and Republican leaders are on the defensive about record-high energy prices, soaring profits at major oil companies and big cuts in domestic spending.

Indeed, Mr. Bush and House Republicans are trying to kill a one-year, $5 billion windfall profits tax for oil companies that the Senate passed last fall.

Moreover, the projected largess could be just the start. Last week, Kerr-McGee Exploration and Development, a major industry player, began a brash but utterly serious court challenge that could, if it succeeds, cost the government another $28 billion in royalties over the next five years.

In what administration officials and industry executives alike view as a major test case, Kerr-McGee told the Interior Department last week that it planned to challenge one of the government's biggest limitations on royalty relief if it could not work out an acceptable deal in its favor. If Kerr-McGee is successful, administration projections indicate that about 80 percent of all oil and gas from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico would be royalty-free.

"It's one of the greatest train robberies in the history of the world," said Representative George Miller, a California Democrat who has fought royalty concessions on oil and gas for more than a decade. "It's the gift that keeps on giving."

Republican lawmakers are also concerned about how the royalty relief program is working out.

"I don't think there is a single member of Congress who thinks you should get royalty relief at $70 a barrel" for oil, said Representative Richard W. Pombo, Republican of California and chairman of the House Resources Committee.

"It was Congress's intent," Mr. Pombo said in an interview on Friday, "that if oil was at $10 a barrel, there should be royalty relief so companies could have some kind of incentive to invest capital. But at $70 a barrel, don't expect royalty relief."
Tina Kreisher, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, said Monday that the giveaways might turn out to be less than the basic forecasts indicate because of "certain variables."

The government does not disclose how much individual companies benefit from the incentives, and most companies refuse to disclose either how much they pay in royalties or how much they are allowed to avoid.

But the benefits are almost entirely for gas and oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico.

The biggest producers include Shell, BP, Chevron and Exxon Mobil as well as smaller independent companies like Anadarko and Devon Energy.

Executives at some companies, including Exxon Mobil, said they had already stopped claiming royalty relief because they knew market prices had exceeded the government's price triggers.

About one-quarter of all oil and gas produced in the United States comes from federal lands and federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

As it happens, oil and gas royalties to the government have climbed much more slowly than market prices over the last five years.

judy
"Where am I going and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
pookie769 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2006, 05:40 AM
Senior Cat
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 661
Send a message via MSN to spamlet
Judy, I don't have time to read that article just yet, but I'll come back to it later and spend some time on it. I just wanted to say that I love your posts and every time I see one I get excited! I find them so refreshing. You're my kind of lady! Keep up the informative work!
spamlet is offline  
post #5 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2006, 01:40 PM
Premier Cat

 
Jeanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,563
Send a message via MSN to Jeanie
Well, if this isn't enough to keep the "oil barons" out of the soup lines, perhaps we could provide food stamps for them.

Yes, we have to do something about providing our own energy sources, but surely the support should be given to developing effective and affordable ways to make use of solar energy (and its storage) and other alternatives to fossil fuels. This problem has been discussed since I was a child. Perhaps it's time to stop talking and start doing.

Perhaps the headline will then read:

WINDFALL TO WINDMILLS!




Jeanie

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


A dog, I have always said, is prose; a cat is a poem. ~Jean Burden
Jeanie is offline  
post #6 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2006, 02:04 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: BRAZOS VALLEY, Texas
Posts: 2,672
Send a message via AIM to roseeden
Administration officials say that the benefits are dictated by laws and regulations that date back to 1996, when energy prices were relatively low and Congress wanted to encourage more exploration and drilling in the high-cost, high-risk deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


1996? Isn't that the Clinton Administration?
roseeden is offline  
post #7 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2006, 02:27 PM
Cool Cat
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spamlet
Judy, I don't have time to read that article just yet, but I'll come back to it later and spend some time on it.
Most of the time I don't have enough time to read everything and pass on stuff,

but if you were to take out some smaller quotes and post them more would read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spamlet
I just wanted to say that I love your posts and every time I see one I get excited! I find them so refreshing. You're my kind of lady!
I like to discuss this stuff too, but I won't go that far being I am obviously of different opinion,(just laugh, don't take that seriously, I liked the endorsement too.)

and if they raise taxes on any business, that will just be passed onto the consumer,

and most everyone is not going to get rid of their cars overnite.
Cat Daddy is offline  
post #8 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2006, 05:25 PM Thread Starter
Cat Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by shengmei
Administration officials say that the benefits are dictated by laws and regulations that date back to 1996, when energy prices were relatively low and Congress wanted to encourage more exploration and drilling in the high-cost, high-risk deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


1996? Isn't that the Clinton Administration?

Yes, it was the Clinton administration and back then it was a good thing. (Read the article again.) Today it is NOT a good thing. It has turned out to be a colossal giveaway and one our nation can ill afford.

judy
"Where am I going and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
pookie769 is offline  
post #9 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2006, 05:32 PM Thread Starter
Cat Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by spamlet
Judy, I don't have time to read that article just yet, but I'll come back to it later and spend some time on it. I just wanted to say that I love your posts and every time I see one I get excited! I find them so refreshing. You're my kind of lady! Keep up the informative work!

Why, THANK YOU Spamlet! I appreciate your kind words (and progressive thinking), indeed.

judy
"Where am I going and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
pookie769 is offline  
post #10 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2006, 10:13 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: BRAZOS VALLEY, Texas
Posts: 2,672
Send a message via AIM to roseeden
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookie769
Quote:
Originally Posted by shengmei
Administration officials say that the benefits are dictated by laws and regulations that date back to 1996, when energy prices were relatively low and Congress wanted to encourage more exploration and drilling in the high-cost, high-risk deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


1996? Isn't that the Clinton Administration?

Yes, it was the Clinton administration and back then it was a good thing. (Read the article again.) Today it is NOT a good thing. It has turned out to be a colossal giveaway and one our nation can ill afford.
My eyesight is -1.2 (borderline legally blind) If you could post the article in black instead of red, it would be so much easier to read.
roseeden is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Cat Forum : Cat Discussion Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome