• 1 day PDVSA Booted From Caribbean Terminal Over Unpaid Bills
  • 1 day Russia Warns Ukraine Against Recovering Oil Off The Coast Of Crimea
  • 2 days Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 2 days Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 2 days Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 2 days Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 2 days Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 2 days New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 2 days Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 2 days Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 2 days Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 2 days British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 3 days Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 3 days Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 3 days Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 3 days OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 3 days London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 3 days Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 3 days Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 3 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 3 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 4 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 4 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 4 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 4 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 5 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 5 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 5 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 5 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 5 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 5 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 5 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 5 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 5 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 6 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 6 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 6 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 6 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 6 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 6 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
Alt Text

The New Challenger To Lithium Batteries

The lithium-ion battery is head…

Alt Text

Are Combustion Engines Reaching Peak Demand?

As countries announce plans to…

Alt Text

Oil Prices Spike On Middle East Tensions

Oil prices jumped upwards on…

John Daly

John Daly

Dr. John C.K. Daly is the chief analyst for Oilprice.com, Dr. Daly received his Ph.D. in 1986 from the School of Slavonic and East European…

More Info

Romney Energy Plan - Good or Bad for America? - Part Two

Romney Energy Plan - Good or Bad for America? - Part Two

For part 1 please click here

On 22 August, the Republican campaign released its “The Romney Plan For A Stronger Middle Class: ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.”

Two of the white paper’s six sections are, “Empower states to control onshore energy development” and “Open offshore areas for energy development.”

The Romney white paper proposals, adopted should he become President, would end a century of federal control over oil and gas drilling and coal mining on government lands by transferring decision-making on drilling and mining federal lands to individual states. The policy stands in stark contrast to those of both previous Democratic and Republican presidents, dating back to Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, who more than a century ago first set aside vast areas of federal lands, mostly in the energy-rich Western states including New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Alaska, to preserve wildlife and open the tracts for recreation.

The federal government currently possesses roughly 28 percent of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States, but as of March, only about 37 million acres were under lease for oil and natural gas operations, of which about 16.3 million acres have active oil and natural gas production or exploration, according to the Interior Department.(“Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Federal Land Management, ‘Availability and Potential Reliability of Selected Data Elements at Five Agencies,’ Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, United States Government Accountability Office, 3 May 2012
@ http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/mittaltestimony05.03.12.pdf.

The enormity of this asset is not in doubt – the question before the American people is, who would be a better steward of this land for future generations, the federal government or private energy companies?

Four land management agencies - the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture currently manage about 95 percent of the federal land, while the federal Bureau of Reclamation, also in the Interior Department, manages another one percent of federal land.

Shifting control of these federal lands to state control will shift them from a unified federal oversight to a plethora of varying state regulations, which in many cases are less stringent than current federal guidelines.

The Romney white paper acknowledges this proposed fragmentation but nevertheless asserts that state oversight will be “adequate,” observing, “Federal agencies will certify state processes as adequate, according to established criteria that are sufficiently broad, to afford the states maximum flexibility to ascertain what is most appropriate.”


Under the Romney plan, transferring oversight of federal lands to state control will likely lead to energy companies utilizing their immense fiscal clout to target states with the most lax oversight procedures, and visitors to Yellowstone and Mount Rushmore could soon see their views imped by energy derricks.

“Open offshore areas for energy development”

All energy development comes with risk. But even before the April 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico disaster, federal agencies were warning that their resources could be overwhelmed by a massive disaster.

At the time of the Gulf of Mexico debacle, the Congressional Research Service warned, “Considering that U.S. oil consumption and oil imports have increased in recent decades, the trend of declining spill incidents and volume in past years is noteworthy. However, the risk of a major oil spill remains. Although recent Energy Information Administration (EIA) projections indicate that oil imports are expected to level off in coming years, the United States is expected to continue importing a substantial percentage of the oil it consumes. The threat of oil spills raises the question of whether U.S. officials have the necessary resources at hand to respond to a major spill. There is some concern that the favorable U.S. spill record has resulted in a loss of experienced personnel, capable of responding quickly and effectively to a major oil spill.”(Jonathan L. Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy, “Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background, Governance, and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, 30 April 2010.)

Do the U.S. coastal regions want to deal with seemingly inevitable oil spills that will occur off the U.S. Pacific and Atlantic coasts should they be opened under the Romney plan to offshore drilling?  As a cautionary reminder, the 20 April 2010 catastrophe began with the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion after BP drilled its Macondo 252 well off the Louisiana Gulf coast. By the time that it was capped, the Macondo well gushed 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 straight days.(“Storm Isaac tars Louisiana beaches with oil from BP spill,” Reuters news agency, 11 September 2012 

Quite aside from engineering errors, weather is an additional element that must also be considered if the U.S. is to expand its offshore energy operations. According to the federal agency National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “National Weather Service National Hurricane Center, the 2005 Katrina hurricane “was one of the most devastating hurricanes in the history of the United States. It is the deadliest hurricane to strike the United States since the Palm Beach-Lake Okeechobee hurricane of September 1928. It produced catastrophic damage - estimated at $75 billion in the New Orleans area and along the Mississippi coast - and is the costliest U. S. hurricane on record.”(“Hurricanes in History,” National Weather Service National Hurricane Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration @ http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/#katrina.)

Accordingly, does the American electorate truly want to “Establish a new five-year offshore leasing plan that aggressively opens new areas for development beginning with those off the coast of Virginia and the Carolinas”?

The Department of Justice noted, “In response to the effects of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion, fire, and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. Government has committed to holding all responsible parties accountable for all cleanup costs and other damage. Federal officials have identified BP as one of the responsible parties, and BP has begun to receive and process applications for claims stemming from the effects of the oil spill.”(“BP Deepwater Horizon (BP) oil spill Fraud,” U.S. Department of Justice @ http://www.justice.gov/criminal/oilspill/).

U.S. government concerns for the stewardship of the land date back more than a century – does the U.S. electorate really want to ignore this legacy in pursuit of a “quick fix” purported energy indpendence? Who benefits – American voters or energy companies?

And, if things fail, who pays for the cleanup of Yellowstone. Malibu or Myrtle Beach?

Did You Know?

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt was instrumental in establishing the nation’s first national parks, during his term signing legislation establishing five national parks, as well as the 1906 Antiquities Act, which allowed him and his successors to proclaim historic landmarks, historic or prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interests in federal ownership as national monuments.(Barry Mackintosh, “Theodore Roosevelt and the National Park System,” National Park Service, 1999 
For part 1 please click here

By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • bmz on September 14 2012 said:
    ALL Republican energy plans are frauds. Since Nixon, Republican administrations have promised energy independence if we would give the oil industry tax subsidies; and since Nixon our oil production has fallen under every Republican administration. Obama's administration is the first where oil production has actually risen for every year. In 2010 and 2011 Democrats proposed bills that would actually make us energy independent by providing the infrastructure to employ our vast natural gas reserves as a transportation fuel--both times the Republicans defeated the bills. They are total frauds; they talk-the-talk, but they wont walk-the-walk.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News