Today's Paper Search Latest Core values App Traffic map Listen In the news #Gazette200 Digital FAQ Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles/Games Archive
ADVERTISEMENT
story.lead_photo.caption Oil and gas platforms clutter the horizon in the Gulf of Mexico south of Port Fourchon, La., in January 2018. Thanks to a poorly written provision by federal lawmakers in 1995, some of the world’s largest oil companies have avoided paying at least $18 billion in royalties for fuels extracted in the Gulf since 1996.

The U.S. government has lost billions of dollars of oil and gas revenue to fossil-fuel companies because of a provision in a decades-old law, a federal watchdog agency said Thursday, offering the first detailed accounting of the consequences of a misstep by lawmakers that is expected to continue costing taxpayers for decades to come.

The provision dates from an effort in 1995 to encourage drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by offering oil companies a temporary break from paying royalties on the oil produced. However, the rule was poorly written -- and the temporary reprieve was accidentally made permanent on some wells.

As a result, some of the biggest oil companies in the world -- including Chevron, Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil -- have avoided paying at least $18 billion in royalties on oil and gas drilled since 1996, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress.

The companies, which hold government leases to drill in the Gulf, continue to extract oil and gas from those wells while not being required to pay royalties, a right the industry has gone to court to defend.

A spokesman for the industry group the American Petroleum Institute, which represents many of the companies affected, said courts had "ruled there was nothing ambiguous about the 1995 act." The companies "took Congress at its word," said the spokesman, Ben Marter, and any attempts to revisit the issue would be "engaging in a dangerous game of bait-and-switch."

The mistake cuts into federal coffers. Royalties from offshore oil and gas are a significant source of revenue, pulling in almost $90 billion from 2006-18, according to the agency.

Frank Rusco, a director of the Government Accountability Office's Natural Resources and Environment team and the report's author, said the findings are an extreme example of the Department of the Interior failing to ensure that American taxpayers receive a fair market value for the oil and gas extracted from public property.

"These leases sold 20 years ago might keep producing for decades. The amount of forgone royalties is going to continue to increase," Rusco said. "It's a strong case for Interior to review how it collects revenues on oil and gas."

The Interior Department said that it "takes seriously" its responsibility to ensure that the American public receives a fair value for public resources. Still, some parts of the report "do not paint a representative picture" of the agency's efforts, Casey Hammond, acting assistant secretary for land and minerals, said in the agency's response, which was also released Thursday.

Department data shows that Chevron holds the most royalty-free leases in the Gulf of Mexico, followed by Anadarko (now a part of Occidental Petroleum), Norway's Equinor and Shell. Exxon Mobil, BP and the China National Offshore Oil Corp., China's state-run offshore oil and gas company, also own royalty-free leases, the data shows.

Chevron declined to comment. Shell, Occidental, BP, Exxon and Equinor referred queries to the American Petroleum Institute. Calls to China National's Houston offices went unanswered.

The report of the windfall to oil companies comes as the Trump administration has moved to further reduce the cost of offshore drilling for the industry, proposing to significantly weaken safety rules put in place after the deadly 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. President Donald Trump also earlier pushed to expand new offshore oil and gas drilling, though that plan was put on hold after being challenged in court.

The fossil fuel industry is facing heightened scrutiny on several fronts. The United Nations has warned that oil and gas production must decline substantially in the coming years if humanity is to avoid the worst effects of climate change worldwide, including more severe flooding, droughts and sea level rise. And Exxon Mobil this week is fighting charges in a New York City courtroom that the company lied to shareholders about the costs and consequences of global warming.

This week at a hearing of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Exxon and other oil giants came under further attack.

"Major oil and gas companies, whose products are substantially responsible for global greenhouse emissions and the resulting climate emergency we now face, had early and repeated knowledge of the climate risk," Sharon Y. Eubanks, who formerly directed tobacco litigation at the Department of Justice, told the committee. "They chose to mount a campaign of disinformation and denial."

Exxon has said the company has long acknowledged climate change is real and has called the charges "meritless" and "unconnected from the truth."

The oil industry revenue detailed in Thursday's report is a product of a different era in America.

Today, thanks to the fracking boom, the United States is the largest oil producer in the world. But back in the late 1990s -- when the country was heavily reliant on oil imports -- the federal government wanted to boost American energy independence by encouraging more exploration in the Gulf. And since oil prices were low, Washington tried to make it worthwhile for oil companies by offering a brief reprieve on the royalties.

In 1995, Congress, working with oil executives, passed a law allowing companies that bid for new offshore leases to avoid paying the standard 12%, or share of sales, on the oil and gas those leases eventually produced. The Interior Department leases tens of millions of acres of ocean territory to oil producers in exchange for an upfront bid for the lease, followed by royalties.

Supporters of the law argued that not only would the incentive reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, but it would in fact generate money for the government by prompting producers to bid higher prices for new leases.

But in what officials at the time said was an error, the law omitted a crucial clause that had been supported by Republicans and Democrats: that if average prices for oil and gas climbed above a certain threshold, companies would be responsible for paying the royalties. In 2006, when the federal government tried to impose royalties, an oil producer sued and won.

The accountability office report says that waiving royalties between 1996 and 2000, the final year royalty-free leases were offered, likely increased bidding for offshore leases by almost $2 billion. But forgone royalty revenue has been nine times greater, adding up to $18 billion through the end of 2018, the report found.

Because most of the leases are still producing oil, the financial benefits for oil companies will ultimately be higher, the report adds.

"This is handing out public money to special interests that don't need them, don't deserve them and aren't paying their fair share," said Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. "Our laws and standards need to reflect the fact that public resources are there for the benefit of the public."

The GAO report recommends that the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which oversees offshore leases, enlist a third-party expert to assess whether government valuations of oil and gas resources are sound. The Interior Department has pushed back against some of the report's findings and recommendations, including the need for a third-party examination.

A Section on 10/25/2019

Print Headline: '90s leases let oil firms drill royalties-free

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsor Content

COMMENTS - It looks like you're using Internet Explorer, which isn't compatible with the Democrat-Gazette commenting system. You can join the discussion by using another browser, like Firefox or Google Chrome.
It looks like you're using Microsoft Edge. The Democrat-Gazette commenting system is more compatible with Firefox and Google Chrome.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT