More Big Oil Corruption From Chimpy & Co

[ECW]

Big Oil?s lobbying representative in Washington, D.C.?the American Petroleum Institute, whose annual budget exceeds $112 million?recently said that they ?will spend what?s necessary? to reform the industry?s battered public image. So they?ve hired the same PR firm that developed the ?Got Milk?? campaign.

One of the reasons the oil industry can afford its new public relations spending spree is the fleecing it?s pulled on the American taxpayer with the active help of the Bush administration. A recent Inspector General audit of the U.S. Department of the Interior?s Minerals Management Service concludes that oil companies are pumping oil from federal land without paying adequate royalties to taxpayers for the privilege. The report cites widespread cronyism, ethical breaches, decimated auditing staff and overreliance on information provided by Big Oil as culprits in the oil industry giveaway. Meanwhile the Justice Department unexpectedly announced the welcome news that it has initiated criminal investigationsÂ*Â*into the Interior Department's oversight of oil companies.

The United States is the world?s third largest oil producer?extracting more oil every day than Iran, Kuwait and Qatar combined?and one-third of that American-made oil is tapped on federal land. With oil prices above $60 per barrel, we?re talking about billions of dollars worth of oil that companies like ExxonMobil are removing from public property without paying the government fair compensation. No wonder the big five oil companies?Exxon, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell?have posted $93 billion in profits in just the first nine months of this year.

The investigation found that the Bush administration relies heavily upon data supplied by the oil industry?which the government then fails to independently verify?in order to calculate the value of royalties owed. Since George W. Bush has been president, the number of auditors on staff has been cut nearly 16 percent, leaving fewer watchdogs to examine claims made by oil companies. As a result, the agency relies less on auditors and more on a widely ridiculed computer program to conduct the examination.

This explains why a chunk of the paltry revenues generated by the royalty-counting agency isn?t coming from audits, but from lawsuits filed by disgruntled government inspectors under the Federal Civil False Claims Act. This statute allows private citizens?in this case, government employees handcuffed by their politically appointed bosses from doing their jobs?to recover royalty underpayments from the oil companies through the courts. In 2006, one out of every five dollars collected through audits or compliance review were the result of employee-initiated litigation and not through official government initiative. Department of Interior employees have to go around their politically appointed bosses in order to force oil companies to pay their fair share of royalties to taxpayers.

So how did the Bush administration deal with these criticisms? It appointed David T. Deal head of a new advisory panel to review complaints about the royalty program. And Mr. Deal?s qualifications? From 1975 to 2003, he served as General Counsel to the American Petroleum Institute. We?d call that putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

......

But the old guard couldn?t resist a last giveaway to Big Oil. On December 8, the eve of the end of the so-called lame duck session littered with 47 fired and retired lawmakers, the House of Representatives voted 207 to 205 to reject an amendment that would have corrected a separate, looming oil royalty fiasco. A decade ago, the Department of Interior offered big royalty breaks on some new oil and natural gas leases. But the government forgot to put a ?ceiling? on the contracts that would have limited or revoked the royalty break if oil climbed to a sufficiently high price. At the time that the contracts were negotiated, a barrel of oil was in the $15 range. Now that it?s over $60 and the companies are ready to pump out the oil, they stand to gain record profits while the American taxpayer stands to lose $10 billion over the life of these leases.

.....

Nancy Pelosi has already said that holding oil companies accountable will be a centerpiece of her first 100 days as Speaker. At a time when our federal budget, our environment and our pocketbooks need it most, let?s hope the new management will finally end Big Oil?s free ride.

Why is this not surprising? The Republican party is politically bankrupt and here is the proof they have sold their souls to Big Business. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to the rescue.

The Story (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/18/oil_cheats.php)

[BoogyMan]

But the old guard couldn?t resist a last giveaway to Big Oil. On December 8, the eve of the end of the so-called lame duck session littered with 47 fired and retired lawmakers, the House of Representatives voted 207 to 205 to reject an amendment that would have corrected a separate, looming oil royalty fiasco. A decade ago, the Department of Interior offered big royalty breaks on some new oil and natural gas leases. But the government forgot to put a ceiling on the contracts that would have limited or revoked the royalty break if oil climbed to a sufficiently high price. At the time that the contracts were negotiated, a barrel of oil was in the $15 range. Now that it?s over $60 and the companies are ready to pump out the oil, they stand to gain record profits while the American taxpayer stands to lose $10 billion over the life of these leases.

ECW, do you understand what this is talking about?Â*Â*Its sounds like a tax break and if that is true the 10 billion is not lost by tax payers its taxes never collected.Â*Â*There is a huge difference.

[ECW]

The money is not in the Treasury. That's all Big Oil cares about and Chimpy went along with it. There's not much more to say about how neo-con Republicans have raped this economy in their six years, is there?

[BoogyMan]

The money is not in the Treasury. That's all Big Oil cares about and Chimpy went along with it. There's not much more to say about how neo-con Republicans have raped this economy in their six years, is there?


You speak as if the government had a right to that money and that article talks like it was money owed the American public. I am assuming it is tax break monies and not JIB offsets or other type of funds. If this was a tax break then nothing was taken away from the American public and to frame it as such is disingenuous at best.

How about just once we actually have a discussion without you falling back on your neo-con Republican skreed and you actually discuss the topic?

[Guitarmitch]

Lets be honest:

How can you expect a reasoned debate by calling the President 'Chimpy' in the thread title?

[Labrocca]

ECW always calls Bush that...it's one reason I have a hard to taking him seriously.

As for the article...it doesn't really say too much.

ECW is a finger pointer and loves to yell...LOOK LOOK AT THE BAD EVIL GOP!

I ain't buying it.

And ECW...what is Pelosi gonna do about this?

[ECW]

ECW always calls Bush that...it's one reason I have a hard to taking him seriously.

If it acts like a chimp, talks like a chimp and looks like a chimp...

Please don't take me seriously. It's part of the plan.

ECW is a finger pointer and loves to yell...LOOK LOOK AT THE BAD EVIL GOP! I ain't buying it.

I do more than yell about it. I bring proof, which is more than every other neocon/conservative on this board (besides Boogy) does.

And ECW...what is Pelosi gonna do about this?

THIS:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 -- The House voted this evening to rescind $14 billion worth of tax breaks and subsidies for oil drillers and channel the money into a fund that would finance renewable energy projects and new technologies for conserving energy.

Despite opposition from the oil industry and the Bush administration, which contended that the bill would unfairly single out oil companies for higher taxes and could increase the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, the measure passed, 264 to 163, with overwhelming support from Democrats and a considerable number of Republicans as well. But the measure may face a tougher time in the Senate, where the Democrats’ margin is much narrower.

The bill would rescind $7.6 billion worth of tax breaks for oil drillers that the Republican-led Congress had passed in 2004 and 2005, and it would raise another $6.3 billion in royalties from companies that pump oil and gas in publicly owned waters of the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska.

One key provision is aimed at correcting errors in offshore drilling leases signed by the Interior Department in the late 1990s that would allow oil companies to escape billions of dollars in royalties over the next decade. The provision, hotly opposed by the White House as well as the oil industry, would punish companies that refuse to change their leases by imposing a new “conservation fee� on each barrel they produce or by barring them from acquiring additional leases.

“Big Oil is hitting American taxpayers in three ways,� said Representative Nick V. Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Resources Committee. “They are hitting them at the pump. They are hitting them at the Treasury, through the tax code. And they are hitting them through royalty holidays.�

The oil vote marks the completion of a first wave of measures that House Democratic leaders wanted to pass in their first 100 hours of legislative activity after taking control of Congress.

Senate Democrats are moving more cautiously, but they have made it clear that they support most of the provisions and predicted that most would pass the Senate in one form or another.

four days ago... I was busy with other things and didn't get a chance to gloat about how the Democrats are taking care of the people's business that the DO NOTHINGS could not.

[Stoner]

I bring proof

http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-8818.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

[Labrocca]

I do more than yell about it. I bring proof, which is more than every other neocon/conservative on this board (besides Boogy) does.

Saying something over and over doesn't make it true...just an fyi.

Also I am glad the tax breaks are being pulled. I am so not a fan of big oil.

[ECW]

I bring proof

http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-8818.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)


Speaking of proof, we are all still waiting for you to post your proof over the "lie" you have been spreading here. The sword cuts both ways.

[ECW]

I do more than yell about it. I bring proof, which is more than every other neocon/conservative on this board (besides Boogy) does.

Saying something over and over doesn't make it true...just an fyi.

But bringing proof does. I do know the difference between an "opinion" and a claim backed up by a citation aka "proof." That doesn't seem to be the case for a lot of rightwingers here. I post a bucket loads of opinions but when I want to do more than point fingers, I bring the proof. When I don't, feel free to join in. OK?

[piratemonkey]

Saying something over and over doesn't make it true...just an fyi.


Interesting....

I see two references to MSM news sources supporting ECW's position.

I don't see any from any conservatives.

Yet, Labrocca claims ECW is using tactics that violate the rules of logic.

Not very logical, Labrocca...

[BoogyMan]

Guys I still don't see the issue here. All that has been "brought" in this discussion is an unfounded accusation that someone who is an industry insider cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and a sideways glance into class warfare.

My points were never addressed here:

ECW, do you understand what this is talking about? Its sounds like a tax break and if that is true the 10 billion is not lost by tax payers its taxes never collected. There is a huge difference.

Nor were they addressed here:

You speak as if the government had a right to that money and that article talks like it was money owed the American public. I am assuming it is tax break monies and not JIB offsets or other type of funds. If this was a tax break then nothing was taken away from the American public and to frame it as such is disingenuous at best.

How about just once we actually have a discussion without you falling back on your neo-con Republican skreed and you actually discuss the topic?

[piratemonkey]

My points were never addressed here:


By your argument, we shouldn't have taxed the profits up until oil prices reached that ceiling, either.Â*Â*Because, that's their money, not the government's.

Your argument, when brought to its rational limit, is that NO taxes are legitimate.

That's a difficult position to support.

And your position doesn't take into consideration this:
The report cites widespread cronyism, ethical breaches, decimated auditing staff and overreliance on information provided by Big Oil as culprits in the oil industry giveaway.

[BoogyMan]

My points were never addressed here:


By your argument, we shouldn't have taxed the profits up until oil prices reached that ceiling, either. Because, that's their money, not the government's.

Your argument, when brought to its rational limit, is that NO taxes are legitimate.

That's a difficult position to support.

And your position doesn't take into consideration this:
The report cites widespread cronyism, ethical breaches, decimated auditing staff and overreliance on information provided by Big Oil as culprits in the oil industry giveaway.


I really do think you are missing the point Pirate. The money ISNT the government's money, it is the property of the company that earned it. I don't see where you are able to make the conclusion that no taxes are legitimate from my line of argumentation and wonder if you might be projecting what you THINK I might be saying rather that what is sustainable by my commentary.

[piratemonkey]

.The money ISNT the government's money, it is the property of the company that earned it.Â*

So was every single dollar that this company was ever taxed, at one point.

Again, you seem to be arguing against any taxation at all.

[BoogyMan]

.The money ISNT the government's money, it is the property of the company that earned it.

So was every single dollar that this company was ever taxed, at one point.

Again, you seem to be arguing against any taxation at all.


Let us go back to the original hit piece posted:

A decade ago, the Department of Interior offered big royalty breaks on some new oil and natural gas leases. But the government forgot to put a ceiling on the contracts that would have limited or revoked the royalty break if oil climbed to a sufficiently high price. At the time that the contracts were negotiated, a barrel of oil was in the $15 range. Now that it's over $60 and the companies are ready to pump out the oil, they stand to gain record profits while the American taxpayer stands to lose $10 billion over the life of these leases.

My commentary has been based on the section of the article above, read it and reconsider what I have said.

I am not, nor can you garner from my commentary without projection, anti-tax. I am anti-punitive taxation.

[piratemonkey]

My commentary has been based on the section of the article above, read it and reconsider what I have said.

I am not, nor can you garner from my commentary without projection, anti-tax.Â*Â*I am anti-punitive taxation.


What's punitive about this?

The Clinton and Bush Administrations exhibited "widespread cronyism, ethical breaches, decimated auditing staff and overreliance on information provided by Big Oil." All of that resulted in an error in the taxation system. And error everyone admits now was an error.

So let me ask you this... the Federal Government makes a mistake on your income tax return next year and you only end up paying 1/2 of what you thought you had to pay.

Do you think you won't have to pay that when they figure out the mistake?
:rolleyes:

[BoogyMan]

My commentary has been based on the section of the article above, read it and reconsider what I have said.

I am not, nor can you garner from my commentary without projection, anti-tax. I am anti-punitive taxation.


What's punitive about this?

The Clinton and Bush Administrations exhibited "widespread cronyism, ethical breaches, decimated auditing staff and overreliance on information provided by Big Oil." All of that resulted in an error in the taxation system. And error everyone admits now was an error.

So let me ask you this... the Federal Government makes a mistake on your income tax return next year and you only end up paying 1/2 of what you thought you had to pay.

Do you think you won't have to pay that when they figure out the mistake?
:rolleyes:


What you are saying is an error is what the article calls a failure to put a ceiling on royalties. This is not an error, but is 20/20 hindsight.

If they now think that there SHOULD be a ceiling let them try and get one passed. To present it as the GOP bilking millions from the taxpayers is dishonest at best as that money does not belong in the treasury under current statute.

[piratemonkey]

What you are saying is an error is what the article calls a failure to put a ceiling on royalties.Â*Â*This is not an error, but is 20/20 hindsight.

You seem to be arguing that it wasn't in the tax code, therefore it wouldn't be fair for them to owe this money.Â*Â*I'm not sure that's clear from the information we have.Â*Â*It could be that the administration of the tax code was what was in error.

To properly judge this we need to know if the cap was left out of the tax legislation or if it was just left out in the administration of the law.Â*Â*You could be right, if the former is the case.


If they now think that there SHOULD be a ceiling let them try and get one passed.Â*Â*To present it as the GOP bilking millions from the taxpayers is dishonest at best as that money does not belong in the treasury under current statute.


And especially sense this has been going on since Clinton.Â*Â*This didn't start under Bush.Â*Â*Bush didn't fix it, which why he is culpable to.

I agree.Â*Â*Turning this into a right/left issue isn't rational.