• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Who Profits From Loopholes?

Tex

Well-known member
Home > Issues > 2007 > Big Oil’s Favorite Representatives
Big Oil’s Favorite Representatives

By Daniel J. Weiss, Anne Wingate

August 22, 2007

* View chart detailing oil and gas campaign contributions to all representatives

* View chart detailing oil and gas campaign contributions to representatives in close races

A clean energy incentives tax package, H.R. 2776, passed in the House of Representatives on August 4 as an essential element of New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, H.R. 3221. The tax package would eliminate $16 billion worth of tax loopholes that benefit big oil and recover unpaid royalties on oil and gas from federal waters off the Gulf of Mexico in order to fund billions of dollars in clean alternative energy technologies such as wind and solar power, clean alternative fuels, and energy efficiency.

The House passed legislation, H.R. 6, that closed the same loopholes and recovered lost royalties in January. But in the Senate, the oil lobby convinced enough members to oppose a similar clean energy incentives tax package that it was defeated by a 58-36 vote, with 60 votes needed to end debate and pass the package.

It is no surprise that the oil lobby fought hard to do the same thing in the House. The big oil companies scoured the halls of Congress in the days leading up to the vote hoping to convince a majority of representatives to oppose H.R. 2776. An important tool in big oil’s arsenal was the $29 million in campaign contributions that it donated to the representatives serving in the 110th Congress between 1989 and 2006. These contributions are a trivial investment compared to the $16 billion in tax loopholes and royalty relief that the big oil companies want to maintain.

The 189 representatives that voted with big oil and against the clean energy tax package received on average four times as many campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry as their colleagues who voted for it. These 189 representatives received an average of $109,277 in contributions from the oil and gas industry between 1989 and 2006. The 221 representatives that voted for the package received an average of only $26,277 over that same period. View an extensive breakdown of all oil and gas industry campaign contributions here.

Interestingly, there is a larger contribution difference between members who won a close race in 2006 than among House members as a whole. Close races are those with winners who garner 55 percent or less of the vote. Representatives that won by this narrow margin who voted against the clean energy tax package received an average of $101,270 from oil and gas entities. The victors in these narrow races who voted for the tax package received a paltry average of $9,837. In other words, close race winners who voted with big oil received 10 times more campaign contributions than their counterparts who voted for the tax package. View an extensive breakdown of oil and gas industry campaign contributions in close races here.

Opensecrets.org compiled this data based on Federal Election Commission records, and did not report any oil and gas contributions for 25 of the representatives who narrowly won in 2006. Twenty-two were Democrats, and three were Republicans. All of these members had one thing in common—they were running for their first term.

Of the three first-time winners that voted against the tax package, two ran for open seats and one beat an incumbent in the primary. On the other hand, 15 of the 21 members without reported oil contributions who won close races and voted for the tax package were challengers.[1] Many of their incumbent opponents—such as Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Rep. Anne Northup (R-KY)—were well entrenched with a long record of support for the oil and gas industry and received a large amount of campaign cash that reflected their efforts.[2] Many of these challengers made support for clean energy a prominent element of their campaign and highlighted their opponents’ support for oil industry tax breaks and loopholes.
Do these campaign contribution differences demonstrate that representatives who voted against the clean energy tax package are on the take from big oil? Of course not. But it does show that representatives who receive significantly more oil and gas campaign contributions were significantly more likely to oppose a tax package that invests in clean energy for vehicles, fuels, and electricity. Given big oil’s $29 million in direct campaign contributions to representatives, it is unsurprising that when big oil knocks, many representatives answer the call.

Fortunately, a majority of the House stood up to big oil to vote for the clean energy tax package. Its fate will be decided as part of this fall’s Senate-House conference committee that will attempt to reconcile differences in the Senate and House versions of their energy bills. The Senate and House members of the conference committee haven’t been named yet, but undoubtedly several of big oil’s closest allies—and largest recipients of their campaign cash—will be among the handful of senators and representatives who will decide the fate of the clean energy tax package and the rest of the energy bill. Stay tuned.

* View chart detailing oil and gas campaign contributions to all representatives

* View chart detailing oil and gas campaign contributions to representatives in close races

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

For TV, Sean Gibbons, Director of Media Strategy
202.682.1611 or [email protected]
For radio, Nadia Reiman, Radio Coordinator
202.481.8183 or [email protected]
For print, John Neurohr, Press Assistant
202.481.8182 or [email protected]
For web, Erin Lindsay, Online Marketing Manager
202.741.6397 or [email protected]

[1] Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL) did not vote on the tax package.

[2] Richard Pombo received $335,536 from the oil and gas industry from 1992-2006. Anne Northup received $311,827 from oil and gas from 1996-2006. Both of their successful 2006 opponents, Jerry McNerney and John Yarmuth, reported no oil and gas contributions on opensecrets.org.


http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2007/house_oil_contributions_all.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
Moved from a hijacked thread...

Tex
Go read the thread, steve, I addressed the tax loopholes also.

I had already read the thread... and since your new slant is in who recieved the contributions from and how they voted I decided not to reply... not becuase I disagree, or agree,... but because I had already addressed this in the last thread...
Tex: So do you believe Congress should give "legal" tax loopholes to people who give them large campaign contributions that make the rest of us pay more in taxes?


Steve responded: What are you talking about?

Where in any post that I have ever made could you possibly come to that conclusion?

I have never made any comment in favor of the loophole or of any support of pay to play conduct?


I don't believe congress should give legal tax loopholes to any special interest that give large campaign contributions...

every politician that receives any money and makes a decision on a law will be perceived as favoring the contributer...is it a fact?... only the politician knows.. but I have no sympathy for any politician convicted of corruption.... no matter which party..

try to at least read what I have said... :roll:

you seem so bent on haveing an arguement that supports your agenda that you can't hear or read a word that is said... making it pointless to debate with you...

I read what you were saying... I just didn't care to respond to the same question again.. ... until you stalked me in another thread and hijacked it..
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Moved from a hijacked thread...

Tex
Go read the thread, steve, I addressed the tax loopholes also.

I had already read the thread... and since your new slant is in who recieved the contributions from and how they voted I decided not to reply... not becuase I disagree, or agree,... but because I had already addressed this in the last thread...
Tex: So do you believe Congress should give "legal" tax loopholes to people who give them large campaign contributions that make the rest of us pay more in taxes?


Steve responded: What are you talking about?

Where in any post that I have ever made could you possibly come to that conclusion?

I have never made any comment in favor of the loophole or of any support of pay to play conduct?


I don't believe congress should give legal tax loopholes to any special interest that give large campaign contributions...

every politician that receives any money and makes a decision on a law will be perceived as favoring the contributer...is it a fact?... only the politician knows.. but I have no sympathy for any politician convicted of corruption.... no matter which party..

try to at least read what I have said... :roll:

you seem so bent on haveing an arguement that supports your agenda that you can't hear or read a word that is said... making it pointless to debate with you...

I read what you were saying... I just didn't care to respond to the same question again.. ... until you stalked me in another thread and hijacked it..

no, steve, you argued against taxing big corporations their fair share and closing those loopholes/tax/royalty give aways.

It would have been far more profitable for the U.S. to take those royalties in the form of barrels that they pumped into the strategic`petroleum reserve as they had in the past instead of giving it back to the oil companies. We would have been much farther ahead.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
You can not discount the fact that they are both revenues, whether or not you call them tax breaks.

in business,... Profit generally is the making of gain in business activity for the benefit of the owners of the business.

In economics, a firm is said to be making a normal profit when total revenues equal total costs

An economic profit arises when its revenue exceeds the total (opportunity) cost of its inputs, noting that these costs include the cost of equity capital that is met by "normal profits." A business is said to be making an accounting profit if its revenues exceed the accounting cost the firm "pays" for those inputs.[1] Economics treats the normal profit as a cost, so when deducted from total accounting profit what is left is economic profit (or economic loss).

yes. in light of the oil prices' rise the corporations made a profit...

and the leases then paid royalties...

had the fed, capped the royalties profit,..then the US would have seen more royalty revenue

had the fed not allowed the reduced royalty leases and the depreciation, when the oil companies could not see a "normal profit", let alone "an economic profit" the oil companies would not have drilled and the US would not have any additional revenue to whine about...

the fed decision at the time was right... the error was in not capping the profit... it's easy to look back... and forcast the past... try doing that for the future..
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex
You can not discount the fact that they are both revenues, whether or not you call them tax breaks.

in business,... Profit generally is the making of gain in business activity for the benefit of the owners of the business.

In economics, a firm is said to be making a normal profit when total revenues equal total costs

An economic profit arises when its revenue exceeds the total (opportunity) cost of its inputs, noting that these costs include the cost of equity capital that is met by "normal profits." A business is said to be making an accounting profit if its revenues exceed the accounting cost the firm "pays" for those inputs.[1] Economics treats the normal profit as a cost, so when deducted from total accounting profit what is left is economic profit (or economic loss).

yes. in light of the oil prices' rise the corporations made a profit...

and the leases then paid royalties...

had the fed, capped the royalties profit,..then the US would have seen more royalty revenue

had the fed not allowed the reduced royalty leases and the depreciation, when the oil companies could not see a "normal profit", let alone "an economic profit" the oil companies would not have drilled and the US would not have any additional revenue to whine about...

the fed decision at the time was right... the error was in not capping the profit... it's easy to look back... and forcast the past... try doing that for the future..

Steve, I don't think you get it. The whole excuse for the leases not having royalty requirements was that it wasn't profitable to drill BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING PRICE. That excuse evaporated rather quickly but Clinton's idiot bureaucrats were not competent enough to consider that inevitability in their leases.

You may want to be liberal enough to allow Clinton's administration to sell out the public interests so cheaply, but I do not. When I see there needs to be a change in direction, I act on it. You seem to excuse it.

Rich corporations are not paying their fair share and in the energy policy we have all had to contribute to Exxon's president's record retirement gift. I happen to not agree with that policy and you defend it.

Stop defending rich corporations who bribe politicians so they will not have to pay their fair share.
 

Steve

Well-known member
tex
Steve, I don't think you get it.

I know you don't get it but I'll retype it for you...

I am not defending the Clinton error... just the intent of the law... and the results... the result is that when oil prices went up... these wells were already in production... not just going out for lease... and we are already taxing the profit and recieveing royalty

The oil companies bargained in good faith... do I like that they made huge profits... not really but I like it alot more then huge losses or them folding up..



but you can't seem to read because you want an arguement...

so I'll repeat myself... discussion over ...if all you want to do is argue then argue with your self...
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
tex
Steve, I don't think you get it.

I know you don't get it but I'll retype it for you...

I am not defending the Clinton error... just the intent of the law... and the results... the result is that when oil prices went up... these wells were already in production... not just going out for lease... and we are already taxing the profit and recieveing royalty

The oil companies bargained in good faith... do I like that they made huge profits... not really but I like it alot more then huge losses or them folding up..



but you can't seem to read because you want an arguement...

so I'll repeat myself... discussion over ...if all you want to do is argue then argue with your self...


No, the U.S. was not receiving the royalties on all the wells as this article points out, steve.

As I said before, you know about as much on this issue as you knew about the housing sub prime mess. You are so easily swayed by ideology that you ignore the facts.

Here is the article:

U.S. House Votes to End Subsidies and Tax Breaks for Oil Companies
From Larry West,
Your Guide to Environmental Issues.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Money saved would be invested in alternative energy and conservation
January 19, 2007 – The U.S. House of Representatives, under new Democratic leadership, yesterday passed legislation that would end more than $14 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies and earmark that money to help develop renewable energy, alternative fuels and conservation technologies.

Despite strong opposition from the oil industry and the Bush administration, which argued the measure could increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil, the bill passed by a vote of 264 to 163, with many Republicans joining Democrats to ensure an easy victory. House passage of the bill to end oil subsidies and tax breaks is only the most recent indication that Congress will give energy and environmental issues more substantive attention now that Democrats control both houses following the 2006 elections.

“Today’s vote represents the first step toward a future of energy independence,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

How the New Bill Would End Oil Subsidies and Tax Breaks
The bill would end $7.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, which Congress passed in 2004 and 2005, and impose $6.3 billion in royalties on companies that drill for oil and gas offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and near Alaska.

All of the money would be placed in a reserve account, to be used to develop renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, alternative fuels such as ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells, and conservation incentives and technologies.

House Democrats Get to Work
The bill to end oil subsidies and tax breaks was the last of six major pieces of legislation passed by the House during the first 100 hours of legislative business in 2007. The other bills passed during the 100-hour blitz include legislation to:

* implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission;
* increase the Federal Minimum Wage;
* promote embryonic stem-cell research;
* require the government to negotiate for lower Medicare prescription drug costs; and
* reduce interest rates on student loans.

Will Bush Veto Bill to End Oil Subsidies and Tax Breaks?
Before any of the six bills passed by the House can become law, they must also be passed by the Senate and signed by President Bush. If Bush decides to veto any of the bills, it is not clear whether Congress would have enough votes to override his veto.

Although the president is an ardent supporter of the oil and gas industry, and despite his outspoken opposition to the new bill, he may be inclined to sign it into law rather than veto it.

In his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush decried America’s addiction to oil and called for a stronger commitment to developing renewable energy sources and alternative fuels. Meanwhile, some major oil and gas producers have said publicly that they don’t really need special subsidies and tax breaks to turn a good profit.

How and Why Oil Companies Stopped Paying Royalties
In the late 1990s, the U.S. Interior Department signed drilling leases that, because of errors in the documents, allowed oil companies to avoid paying billions of dollars in royalties for a decade. The new legislation includes a provision that would require companies that refuse to change their leases to pay a “conservation fee” on each barrel of oil they produce or be denied additional leases. If they don’t pay, they don’t drill.

“Big Oil is hitting the taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times,” according to Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), chairman of the House Natural 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 with royalty holidays.”

"The oil industry doesn't need the taxpayers' help. ... There is not an American that goes to a gas pump that doesn't know that," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-MD. Gasoline prices soared to $3 per gallon or above in 2006 as oil companies like ExxonMobil continued to earn record profits.

Hoyer said the new legislation signals a critical shift in U.S. energy policy and “starts to move our nation in a new direction.”

Senate Hearing Reveals “Bureaucratic Bungling”
At a hearing of the Senate Energy Committee prior to the House vote, the Government Accountability Office estimated that errors in the oil leases signed in the 1990s has cost the U.S. Treasury $1 billion, and could end up costing $10 billion if the leases aren’t changed.

Basically, the leases were supposed to allow oil companies drilling in certain waters to avoid paying royalties on their initial production, but the incentive would end if oil prices exceeded $34 per barrel. Unfortunately, that clause was mistakenly omitted from many leases signed in the 1990s, so oil companies with the flawed leases haven’t paid a dime in royalties for several years.

Earl E. Devaney, the Interior Department inspector general, told the senators at the hearing that the mistake was first spotted in 2000, but it wasn’t made public until The New York Times reported it in February 2006. Apparently, officials at the Interior Department and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) decided they couldn’t change the leases because it would mean violating a contract—a view the White House shares.

Devaney called the agency’s failure to act “a shockingly cavalier management approach” and a “jaw-dropping example of bureaucratic bungling.”

After the hearing, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told reporters that the government’s oil and gas royalty program is “riddled with blatant mismanagement” and said the Senate would likely take legislative action to fix it.


"Today's hearing proved that the more we learn about the MMS program to collect these royalties, the more problems it seems to have," Cantwell said. "The American people deserve a fair return on the natural resources they own, not more giveaways to oil companies already enjoying record profits."

You can find more about the Dept. of the Interior's regulatory ineptness on wikipedia on this subject.

It is still no reason middle class taxpayers should pay for corporate welfare nor allow fiscally liberal Bush to borrow from our children or borrow it from the SS surplus to fund it.

Rich corporations should stop bribing politicians to get tax loopholes and make our regulatory agencies agents of greed. We have the best government money can buy.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
I think big business companies should pay the same rate in taxes as thier highest paid employee.....See big companies create jobs and each one of the jobs pays taxes.......Without the company you not just lose the company taxes but also each individual worker that paid taxes too....I think income should be taxed but I think making companies pay crippling taxes forces them to find these loopholes to avoid taxation...


It is time to stop taxing and start spending responsibly....A company that runs itself efficiently should not have to be penalized for doing so...Look how much taxes big companies bring in each year just through employee taxation....Again it is time to attack the spender not the provider...Honestly the providers are moving out to better economic oppertunities.The only way to stop it is to show an incentive to run your company in your country...

I think big business is taxed enough,if there are loop holes close them ,but do not ask for more taxes...Stop the uncontrolled spending..
 

Steve

Well-known member
NoNothing
I think big business companies should pay the same rate in taxes as their highest paid employee.....See big companies create jobs and each one of the jobs pays taxes.......Without the company you not just lose the company taxes but also each individual worker that paid taxes too....I think income should be taxed but I think making companies pay crippling taxes forces them to find these loopholes to avoid taxation...

It is time to stop taxing and start spending responsibly....A company that runs itself efficiently should not have to be penalized for doing so...Look how much taxes big companies bring in each year just through employee taxation....Again it is time to attack the spender not the provider...Honestly the providers are moving out to better economic opportunities.The only way to stop it is to show an incentive to run your company in your country...

I think big business is taxed enough,if there are loop holes close them ,but do not ask for more taxes...Stop the uncontrolled spending..

Nicely said.. and Happy Healthy Wealthy New Year...

it seems some politicians want to "target" profitable corporations... with out regard to facts and impacts... that those punitive taxes will have...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
Rich corporations are not paying their fair share and in the energy policy

that again...is it your only fall back comment... :roll: :roll: :roll:

this whole topic has been played over and over again with you losing every time..

To rehash it you (and the politicians) forget facts and ignore the truth....

Like this...
The Department of Interior (DOI) did eventually succeed in renegotiating lease terms with some of the oil companies.[66] On December 14, 2006, Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management C. Stephen Allred announced that the government had signed agreements with BP, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Company, Shell, and Walter Oil and Gas Corporation. Under the agreements, these companies agreed to begin paying royalties on oil and gas produced under leases issued in 1998-1999.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex
Rich corporations are not paying their fair share and in the energy policy

that again...is it your only fall back comment... :roll: :roll: :roll:

this whole topic has been played over and over again with you losing every time..

To rehash it you (and the politicians) forget facts and ignore the truth....

Like this...
The Department of Interior (DOI) did eventually succeed in renegotiating lease terms with some of the oil companies.[66] On December 14, 2006, Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management C. Stephen Allred announced that the government had signed agreements with BP, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Company, Shell, and Walter Oil and Gas Corporation. Under the agreements, these companies agreed to begin paying royalties on oil and gas produced under leases issued in 1998-1999.

Looks like you have selective reading skills, there steve. How about this from the article:

Senate Hearing Reveals “Bureaucratic Bungling”
At a hearing of the Senate Energy Committee prior to the House vote, the Government Accountability Office estimated that errors in the oil leases signed in the 1990s has cost the U.S. Treasury $1 billion, and could end up costing $10 billion if the leases aren’t changed.

Basically, the leases were supposed to allow oil companies drilling in certain waters to avoid paying royalties on their initial production, but the incentive would end if oil prices exceeded $34 per barrel. Unfortunately, that clause was mistakenly omitted from many leases signed in the 1990s, so oil companies with the flawed leases haven’t paid a dime in royalties for several years.

Earl E. Devaney, the Interior Department inspector general, told the senators at the hearing that the mistake was first spotted in 2000, but it wasn’t made public until The New York Times reported it in February 2006.


So the problem did not even get attention until the embarrassment set in. This is the problem I see with George Bush and his administration. Either he is woefully uninformed, or he is corrupt, hiding behind his innocent religious facade.

You try to hide behind confusion
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
It would have been far more profitable for the U.S. to take those royalties in the form of barrels that they pumped into the strategic`petroleum reserve as they had in the past instead of giving it back to the oil companies. We would have been much farther ahead.
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=253532#253532


Under the Bush administration, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) dramatically expanded its program to take oil and gas royalties-in-kind (RIK), meaning the industry gives the government a portion of the oil and gas it takes from federal lands rather than paying royalties in cash. Much of the oil taken under this program has been used to fill the federal government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._federal_oil_and_gas_royalties

even though you agree with Bush... I still wouldn't call you a conservative... a Neo-Con yes... a conservative nope.. :lol: :lol: :?

now try not to get all emotional and start your insults again...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
So the problem did not even get attention until the embarrassment set in. This is the problem I see with George Bush and his administration. Either he is woefully uninformed, or he is corrupt, hiding behind his innocent religious facade.

Tex the problem is your inability to accept facts and your constant need to win...

the facts are not in agreement with your slanted article..

I just posted facts that dispute your opinion... and you say I have selective reading...

lets try again...
FACT
In 1998 and 1999, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) under President Clinton issued over 1,000 leases to oil and gas companies which omitted the clause forcing companies to pay royalties if oil prices rose above $34 a barrel and natural gas rose above $4 per thousand cubic feet

FACT
The Department of Interior (DOI) did eventually succeed in renegotiating lease terms with some of the oil companies.[66] On December 14, 2006, Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management C. Stephen Allred announced that the government had signed agreements with BP, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Company, Shell, and Walter Oil and Gas Corporation. Under the agreements, these companies agreed to begin paying royalties on oil and gas produced under leases issued in 1998-1999.

You don't want to accept the facts because they don't support your agenda ..TAX the BIG corporations"...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
So the problem did not even get attention until the embarrassment set in.

the fact is that this has been getting attention since 2000,,

and since it was essentially a Clinton mistake or "Error" no one on the liberal media has said a word...
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex
It would have been far more profitable for the U.S. to take those royalties in the form of barrels that they pumped into the strategic`petroleum reserve as they had in the past instead of giving it back to the oil companies. We would have been much farther ahead.
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=253532#253532


Under the Bush administration, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) dramatically expanded its program to take oil and gas royalties-in-kind (RIK), meaning the industry gives the government a portion of the oil and gas it takes from federal lands rather than paying royalties in cash. Much of the oil taken under this program has been used to fill the federal government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._federal_oil_and_gas_royalties

even though you agree with Bush... I still wouldn't call you a conservative... a Neo-Con yes... a conservative nope.. :lol: :lol: :?

now try not to get all emotional and start your insults again...

You still show your ignorance!!! It was those contracts in that small window of time that were in question on the blundered contracts by the dpt. of interior, and those were not included in the RIKs-- royalties in kind.

Team up with rr on this one. You need a little more knowledge to take me on.

Unfortunately, the RIK program has come under its own scrutiny, again, by the ineptitude of regulators of the program. If Clinton and Bush hadn't stacked the courts with their fascist leaning judges, there would be more judgments against these "rich corporations" who have access to the revolving door politics played in Washington.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
You still show your ignorance!!! It was those contracts in that small window of time that were in question on the blundered contracts by the dpt. of interior, and those were not included in the RIKs-- royalties in kind.



yes it was two separate issues.. and two separate posts...

one is how your wrong again on the royalties,, and the other is how Bush stole your idea a few years ago...


gees your an idiot... I even put them in separate posts so you wouldn't get confused...
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex
You still show your ignorance!!! It was those contracts in that small window of time that were in question on the blundered contracts by the dpt. of interior, and those were not included in the RIKs-- royalties in kind.



yes it was two separate issues.. and two separate posts...

one is how your wrong again on the royalties,, and the other is how Bush stole your idea a few years ago...


gees your an idiot... I even put them in separate posts so you wouldn't get confused...

I was never wrong on royalties. You were. They were not paid on those blundered contracts, which I said they should have, and you continued to think they were.

RIKs were never just GW's idea. They have been around for a long time. My point was that they were not paid on the blundered contracts.

Sometimes you just have to accept a failing grade on the facts, steve.

I am sorry it hurts you so much.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex
So the problem did not even get attention until the embarrassment set in.

the fact is that this has been getting attention since 2000,,

and since it was essentially a Clinton mistake or "Error" no one on the liberal media has said a word...

No, Steve. Wrong on reading comprehension. The IG pointed it out in 2000 but it was not given attention until the press release on it:

Unfortunately, that clause was mistakenly omitted from many leases signed in the 1990s, so oil companies with the flawed leases haven’t paid a dime in royalties for several years.

Earl E. Devaney, the Interior Department inspector general, told the senators at the hearing that the mistake was first spotted in 2000, but it wasn’t made public until The New York Times reported it in February 2006.
 
Top