Sunday, July 28, 2013

Oil Rip Off

I penned this for "The Hill" on Friday.  The poor, poor and downtrodden oil and gas industry is having your lunch everyday.  And in the Sunday morning Journal some oil and gas lackey republican is criticising the BLM for wanting to close Otero Mesa to drilling.  This mascot says that will cost the states millions.  He seems to ignore they aren't paying what they should in the first place.

It may come as a surprise to some that the royalty rate charged to companies extracting oil and gas from federal lands is the same today as it was in the 1920s, when Woodrow Wilson was president.
The current federal onshore royalty rate is 12.5 percent. An analysis of oil-producing western states found that state oil and gas royalties are significantly higher, usually either 16.67 percent or 18.75 percent. Texas – one of the highest producing states in the nation – doubles the federal rate, charging 25 percent to drill on state-owned lands.

Oil and gas found on federal lands belong to the taxpayers, who should be fairly compensated for the extraction of public resources. Updating the federal rate to match state rates would ensure a fair return by closing a gap that costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

The oil and gas industry is a mature industry that has active leases on almost 38 million acres of federal lands. There is no reason to continue the unfair taxpayer-funded subsidy the federal royalty rate has become at a time when the federal government is struggling to balance its budget without raising taxes or cutting important services.

Oil producing states would also benefit directly from updated federal royalties. Under current law, states receive an even share of federal royalties from oil produced within their boundaries. States have their own budget problems and are dealing with the strains that industrial drilling operations place on infrastructure and services – problems that could be addressed using increased revenue from updated royalties.

According to President Obama’s FY 2013 budget, updating royalties, along with other common-sense oil and gas reforms, would generate $2.5 billion in net revenue for the U.S. Treasury over the next decade.

At the state level, the numbers are also significant.  An analysis by the Denver-based Center for Western Priorities found that matching the federal rate to either of the common state rates would have generated between $400 million and $600 million in additional revenue, respectively, in 2012. The low federal rate cost New Mexico and Wyoming each more than $150 million in additional funds. Moving across the West, the outdated federal rate cost Colorado more than $36 million, Utah $44 million, and Montana over $5.5 million.

The good news is that whatever corrective action is taken on royalties, evidence indicates it will not significantly slow drilling. A comparative analysis by the research organization Headwaters Economics shows that states with higher rates are not at a competitive disadvantage to those with a lower rate. Wyoming has the highest effective rate in the West and is also a leader in production.

Of course, there have been other “good ideas” for helping to balance the budget that end up stuck in Washington gridlock. But royalties are different. While Congress can and should update onshore royalty rates, it is within the power of the Interior Department to set a rate that ensures taxpayers a fair return. In fact, under the Bush Administration, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne raised the offshore oil and gas royalty rates to 18.75 percent without fuss.

More recently, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar suggested updating the onshore rates and President Obama’s 2013 budget recommends addressing the royalty issue. The idea has been floated; now it’s time for action.

Read more: 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


Anonymous said...

A couple weeks ago Winsome Quigley wrote that New Mexicans don't know who they are, or something to that effect. I saw some criticism of that column on Facebook, by proud New Mexicans, but in any event, the process of a people defining themselves, or of acquiring a sense of who they are, does take place, and certain people are in a position to influence that.

Someone who writes well enough to appear in national publications, has lived here their whole life, was raised by and around people who lived here before New Mexico was a state, has been intimately involved in running different aspects of the state, knows how the state works, has a broad life experience, straddles the ethnic crease that runs through the middle of the state's psyche, has a wicked sense of humor, etc., would certainly be able to help give New Mexicans a sense of who they are, by way of a memoir, or a novel, or by editing and publishing numerous years of blog posts, or through any kind of writing. By way of photography, too.

I don't know anybody like that of course but if I did I wonder if they might think about that. Even an article that says something in broad outlines sometimes proves to be very influential. It gets people thinking.

Anonymous said...

Lonesome Winsome

Unknown said...

This is all for the good anyway so why will the Obama administration not consider higher royalties when they have every right to charge at a certain percentage. The government will do well with higher profits from royalties.