Interior Secretary Ken Salazar took a few rhetorical bullets for the Obama administration this week while defending his department's 2010-2011 budget request in front of the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Republicans blasted Obama proposals to cut billions of dollars of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, hike fees and royalties charged to companies that drill on public land, and make it tougher to obtain both onshore and offshore leases.
Republicans blasted Obama proposals to cut billions of dollars of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, hike fees and royalties charged to companies that drill on public land, and make it tougher to obtain both onshore and offshore leases.
"This country needs to retain an oil industry to keep us from being 100% dependent of foreign oil, but by all indications this budget is seeking to make that industry uneconomical," Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski said. "America is dangerously reliant on foreign oil. Restricting access to even more of our domestic resources is simply unacceptable, and it will not solve the problem."
Republican John Barrasso of Wyoming was even tougher. "I remain concerned by...what appears to be a war against American oil and natural gas production," Barrasso said. "The administration likes to talk about the virtues of natural gas, but it seems to me the administration is simultaneously imposing regulation and taxes to drive the industry into the ground."
And, in a rare example of bipartisanship, Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana bemoaned the "draconian taxes on the oil and natural gas industry."
Salazar's feathers were barely ruffled. He shot back with what has become his go-to retort to such arguments - don't cry for big oil.
"We are not, as some people would claim, taxing the oil and gas industry to death," Salazar said. "Forty-five billion dollars in profits was reported by ExxonMobil and $25 billion by Royal Dutch Shell, and yet our federal offshore royalty rate at 12.5% is basically the same rate as when the 1920 Minerals Leasing Act was passed. "I don't think any of these fees we're talking about here is going to put anybody out of business. It's not going to have a negative impact in terms of the economic incentive to move forward."
Salazar's grilling fueled an interesting conspiracy theory later in the week after a House Natural Resources subcommittee postponed a hearing that would have featured two Salazar deputies defending their pieces of the Interior budget.
"Democrats cancelled this hearing literally the night before administration officials were going to have to answer tough questions on how the President's budget will increase energy prices and squelch energy job creation in the United States," House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Doc Hastings, Republican-Washington, said.
But the real explanation was far less dramatic. California Democrat Jim Costa, chairman of the subcommittee, said it was postponed due to scheduling conflicts and that it would be rescheduled.
Republican John Barrasso of Wyoming was even tougher. "I remain concerned by...what appears to be a war against American oil and natural gas production," Barrasso said. "The administration likes to talk about the virtues of natural gas, but it seems to me the administration is simultaneously imposing regulation and taxes to drive the industry into the ground."
And, in a rare example of bipartisanship, Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana bemoaned the "draconian taxes on the oil and natural gas industry."
Salazar's feathers were barely ruffled. He shot back with what has become his go-to retort to such arguments - don't cry for big oil.
"We are not, as some people would claim, taxing the oil and gas industry to death," Salazar said. "Forty-five billion dollars in profits was reported by ExxonMobil and $25 billion by Royal Dutch Shell, and yet our federal offshore royalty rate at 12.5% is basically the same rate as when the 1920 Minerals Leasing Act was passed. "I don't think any of these fees we're talking about here is going to put anybody out of business. It's not going to have a negative impact in terms of the economic incentive to move forward."
Salazar's grilling fueled an interesting conspiracy theory later in the week after a House Natural Resources subcommittee postponed a hearing that would have featured two Salazar deputies defending their pieces of the Interior budget.
"Democrats cancelled this hearing literally the night before administration officials were going to have to answer tough questions on how the President's budget will increase energy prices and squelch energy job creation in the United States," House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Doc Hastings, Republican-Washington, said.
But the real explanation was far less dramatic. California Democrat Jim Costa, chairman of the subcommittee, said it was postponed due to scheduling conflicts and that it would be rescheduled.
Leave a comment