U.S. Rep Ed Markey Will Appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. He will be joined on a panel with Red Caveney of the American Petroleum Institute, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Professor Jeffrey Sachs of The Earth Institute at Columbia University. Rep. Markey will tout his Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act and continue his call for Big Oil to drill on millions of acres of land they already own.
On June 12, I introduced the Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act with Representatives Rahm Emanuel, Nick Rahall and Maurice Hinchey. At a time when consumers in Massachusetts and around the nation are paying more than $4 per gallon at the pump, oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of land that they hold the drilling rights to but are not producing on. They need to either use it or lose it.
There’s a myth that Republican Leaders in Washington and executives from the big oil companies are perpetuating: that Big Oil can’t get access to enough places to drill for oil, that we need to allow drilling off our beaches on the East and West coast and in our most pristine places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in order to bring gas prices back down. However, this argument is nothing more than a drilling decoy.
The reality is that roughly 80 percent of offshore oil and gas reserves are located in areas where drilling is already allowed. Moreover, oil and gas companies right now own the drilling rights to 68 million acres offshore and onshore lands that they are not even using to actually produce oil or gas.. Offshore, Big Oil is producing on only about 23 percent of the land they hold, while onshore, companies are producing on roughly 27 percent of the acres to which they hold the drilling rights. Apparently Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil and gas on the public lands they’ve been stockpiling.
Indeed, while Exxon Mobil has increased spending on exploration and drilling by $3 billion over the last five years, it has increased spending on schemes to prop up the price of its stock by nearly $26 billion per year during that same time period. Meanwhile, Exxon spent only $10 million investing in developing renewable technologies last year.
The Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act would assess an escalating fee over time on land energy companies have leased but are not using for production. This fee would be a mere $5 per acre per year for the first three years of non-production but then increase to $25 per acre for the fourth year and $50 per acre in the fifth year and any subsequent years, providing a strong incentive for the oil companies to stop hoarding these leases and start using them.
The revenue raised from these fees will go towards developing renewable energy and investing in energy efficiency that will reduce our dependence on oil and reduce energy prices for American consumers. The revenue will also be used to fund the the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program, which helps permanently reduce energy bills for low income families by making their homes more energy efficient.
With oil companies continuing to sit on these millions of acres as the price of gas skyrockets, it is time to tell Big Oil to start producing or start paying. Big Oil is trying to play Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker and we’re not going to allow it.
…but I just shelled out over $700.00 to top off my oil tank. And all I’m hearing from the majority party is that it’s everybody’s fault but their’s.
<
p>That you continually employ the the term “Big Oil” as pejorative is a clear indicator to me that you are more interested in scoring political points with this issue than helping the American People find real solutions to our energy needs.
<
p>I will anxiously await the links that you must surely have overlooked to prove your assertion that the oil companies already have leases to over 80% of the proven reserves on U.S. lands.
<
p>And I’m certain that you will explain what you meant by “drilling off our beaches on the East and West coast”, making it sound as though one could literally swim out to them. Is that the case Mr. Markey? Would they be right off our beaches? ANd if they’ll help use toward energy independence, Is that a bad thing?
<
p>I’m certain also that you will provide documentation on all the major spills and environmental damage that these evil drilling platforms have caused in recent years, to go along with the largely hyperbolic and uninformative nonsense that you have posted here.
I remember how angry you were about this before 2006…it’s a shame the Democrats didn’t live up to the high expectations you constantly set for the Republicans…
…I’m an Independent. And I set no higher a bar for Democrats than I do for Republicans.
If you can show that I do, then by all means, set aside the snark for a spell, and have at it.
I read a lot of ranting but I can’t discern a coherent line of argument of your comment, geo.
<
p>
<
p>Are you saying that assessing oil companies’ unprecedented profits to help pay for renewable energy isn’t sound policy? Why not? Personally, I think it sounds like an excellent idea.
<
p>
<
p>The Minerals Management Service estimates that about 80% of the available offshore reserves are accessible under the current U.S. leases. I don’t know the particular MMS report that includes that data, but as far as I know, it’s not a controversial figure. I’m sure if you call his office, you can get the specific citation.
<
p>
<
p>Are you saying we should let the oil companies get away with creating artificially low demand to pump up prices? That’s exactly what energy speculators did to create the California “energy crisis”. Why should we bow to their demands to drill in new locations rather than first forcing them to use the land they have?
Yes, I am saying that.
Oil companies are huge operations. The fact that they have huge profits is a matter of scale.
Show me where the percent of profit earned versus dollar invested by the oil companies is out of line with other large operations before you ask me to endorse another crazy kneejerk tax scheme that will impact me a lot more than it will impact “big oil”.
<
p>
I don’t know which report it is either.
But if Mr. Markey is going to assert it as fact, it is his responsibility to provide the citation – not mine to chase it down.
<
p>
<
p>Lowering demand should lower prices. I don’t see where you’re going with that.
But if you feel (as I do) that speculators are largely responsible for price increases, try taxing them.
<
p>You haven’t explained what makes it “crazy”, and when you say it is “another” such scheme, it’s not clear to what others you might be referring.
<
p>Their “percent of profit earned versus dollar invested” is irrelevant. “Big oil” makes unprecedented profits, receives tax breaks to do so, and uses their power and influence to block conservation and renewable energy efforts. Companies should be taxed in proportion their profits, particularly this company that takes steps to artificially lower supply. Using that money for renewable energy efforts just makes sense.
<
p>
<
p>Fair enough. There are several other figures in there, as well. The one you picked on is perhaps the most oft-reported.
<
p>
<
p>Yikes, I meant supply.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you there.
Rate of return is all that matters to the tens of millions of people who’s retirement funds are invested in oil.
Don’t expect me to embrace the notion that the government is better equipped to invest these profits than the folks to whom they rightly belong – the firefighter, the teacher, The factory worker, the small business owner.
<
p>As for “blocking conservation” are you saying that the people don’t have the capacity to rein in their own energy consumption?
<
p>And since when is it incumbent on a business to provide the alternative to it’s own product? Yes it might make good business sense to diversify, But you’re suggesting that the company that makes widgets must invest their profits in gizmos – and I’m just not buying it.
<
p>
Actual numbers don’t square with that assertion.
<
p>No new refineries have been built since the mid-70’s. Since then, nearly 600 fewer refineries are producing 20% more product in a market that has increased demand by 23% since 1990.
<
p>They do on a small scale, but not on a large scale when the market forces are stacked against them. We have to step in and enact policy to encourage (and in some cases mandate) conservation because the market doesn’t work in the face of these enormous economic externalities that are eating away at our health and environment.
<
p>
<
p>It’s not. It’s incumbent upon the legislature to ensure corporations pay their fair share back to the public, in proportion to how much money they make; and it’s incumbent upon the legislature to bolster renewable energy. This policy succeeds at both.
You mean rationing don’t you. How very Marxist of you.
No, for example, it might mean mandating energy efficient light bulbs. That’s not rationing. Thanks for jumping to conclusions, though.
Now that’s Marxism!!! Nothing like stifling the free market. Great Idea!!!!!!
Taxing companies is they don’t pay taxes. Companies figure taxes as an operating cost. Operating costs are figured into the price of a companies product. Therefore, it is the consumer of the products that pay the taxes. Let me ask you who uses the products that the evil “big oil” companies produce? Everyone? WE are the ones who will pay for B.H.O.’s tax scheme.
that Markey (along with Comrade Delahunt) helped Hugo Chavez to dole out some free oil to various needy folk in MA in exchange for (well, we really aren’t sure I guess)
<
p>and now has joined his aforementioned pals with Hinkey, Emmanual and Rahall to in a discussion which promotes the idea of nationalizing our oil refineries.
<
p>quick text summary
<
p>You go, Markey & friends!
<
p>Here’s Hinkey and a supporter FYI:
<
p>http://youtube.com/watch?v=1vh…
<
p>BMG, please, come to your senses! Do we live in a free country, or not? Speak out!
I heard this one last week on Hanity. Did you even consider the reason the Evil Big Oil companies weren’t producing oil on those lands? Could it be because there isn’t enough oil to justify the costs? Can you imagine the oil companies not wanting to make “Obscene” profits just to put the screws to the American people that doesn’t make sense, I thought that was their main motivation.
Rep. Markey is playing to the cheap seats.
<
p>Sadly, he is spoiling this opportunity in the national spotlight to lash out at the administration with churlishly derisive and petulant snark.
<
p>Takes less than 20 seconds to blame Republicans for the “crisis”, uses “tin cup” analogy to describe the Saudi summit. Says Democrats will proffer bills this week to deal with speculators, but offers nothing relating to increasing domestic energy supply.
<
p>Re: “Big Oil”:
“They want to drill off our beaches and where the polar bears are swimming” Yikes!
<
p>Says oil companies aren’t doing enough exploration, then is informed that 100% of exploration equipment is currently in use. Seems woefully uninformed
<
p>Upstaged by his own partner on the nuclear power , raises oogity-boogity proliferation issues, appears flustered.
<
p>Embarrassing.