« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

A Deal’s a Deal (Unless You’re the Government)

Sounds like the U.S. Government needs to hire some competent lawyers.

Lucrative Gulf of Mexico drilling loophole survives challenge in U.S. House

On a mostly party-line vote, The House Friday night rejected a Democratic amendment that would have corrected a 1995 mistake in drilling rules [sic] that allowed oil and gas companies to drill in portions of the Gulf of Mexico without paying royalties.

The amendment would have saved $1.5 billion in 2011, and $53 billion over the next 25 years, according to the measure’s Democratic sponsors. The windfall is a result of a mistake made by the Clinton administration’s oil and gas regulators in 1995, which Congress has been unwilling to change, despite several attempts over the 16 years.

I hate to nit-pick, but the mistake was not made in “drilling rules”, but in the oil and gas lease form that was written by government attorneys, subject to competitive bid in two lease sales back in the 1990s.

Here’s what happened: back in the ’90s, oil prices were too low to justify oil exploration in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. To encourage oil companies to bid on the leases, and the winners subsequently to explore them, the U.S. Government as landowner proposed to waive the (then) 12.5% royalty on certain deepwater leases. The 0% royalty was supposed to revert to 12.5% if oil prices ever exceeded $35 per barrel.

But the section of the lease that addressed the $35 price cap was inadvertently left out of the contract. Ooops.

The leases were subject to competitive bid.

Years passed, and several of the leases were drilled, resulting in a number of discoveries. When the price of oil later climbed past $35, the mistake became apparent.

The (then) Minerals Management Service asked companies to honor the “spirit” of the royalty relief. Some companies complied and paid the royalty per the intent. Some said no.

Congress has huffed and puffed, but has so far been unable to compel the cooperation of the latter group.

I’m no lawyer, but my impression is that in real estate matters, the contract (in this case, the oil and gas lease) is the entirety of the agreement between the parties. In this matter, the courts have ruled favor of the oil companies.

What do you think would have happened if the mistake in a contract happened to favor the Government? Is there any chance that the Government would roll?

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.

Follow VladimirRS on Twitter

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • nivlem

    You should work one summer with the soil conservation service enrolling farmers in “how they can plant their crops” ,. Spend two months having these farmers dime in, fill out forms, make their business plan, contract for their seed…..than sones Einstein in the government decides to change a small item. We start all over again. Reduplicating everyone’s manhood….and this was in the 80′s ..
    And let us not start on construction contracts…from design issues, to color issues, to simply lighting issues….
    It is a joke…
    If they cannot efficiently manage these matters, do you really think they can manage oil drilling?

    • usaf1989

      then dont take the subsidies…:(

  • ohiohistorian

    why didn’t Queen Nancy, the bestest speaker in the universe, get it voted on by her rubberstamp House, get Consort Harry and his minions to second it, and sent to the Great One’s desk? They had the majority; they didn’t have the guts to change it is my guess.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      …especially one that gov’t lawyers wrote, was competitively bid, and that the other party constructively relied upon in making its investment decisions.

      They did try to concoct (on more than one occasion, IIRC) a cockamamie punitive tax that would have been crafted to only apply to the “offending” leases. Again, I’m no lawyer, but it sounds like a bill of attainder to me.

      That several of the similarly-situated parties caved and paid the royalty that they were not contractually bound to pay speaks to the supposed “cozy relationship” between MMS and its lessees pre-BP spill. Those companies, Shell for one, chose not to buck MMS and made a business decision to voluntarily forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue out of fear of retribution from the regulator.

  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    Ruin is more like it!

  • itrytobenice

    If we accidentally set your interest rate on your loan with us at zero, then try to charge interest on it because, “oops,” the FDIC would eat us for lunch.

    But to these people, who believe they are our betters, that’s not the same at all. More citizen legislators please. I’m tired of career politicians running my gov’t.

  • walter_hanson

    It’s quite obvious why they want to stop the drilling for oil in the Gulf. It’s to get these companies to beg for a new lease with the lets say 25% royality in it.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN