Several stories today worth comparing — the first a commentary by Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott, in which he sets the record straight on the availability of federal lands for oil and gas exploration:
Based on government data…Ninety four percent of federal onshore lands are off-limits to oil and gas exploration, while 97 percent of offshore federal lands are off-limits.
So virtually all of the public lands now owned by the American people but controlled by the federal government isn’t even eligible to be placed on the auction block for bidding by U.S. companies for energy exploration rights leasing.
Who benefits from this lockup of virtually all of America’s public lands from American energy companies? Well, here are the top beneficiaries:
* National Iranian Oil Company
* Saudi Arabian Oil Company
* Iraq National Oil Company
* Qatar General Petroleum Corporation
* Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (UAE)
* Kuwait Petroleum Corporation
* Petroleos de Venezuela.S.A.
* Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation
* National Oil Company (Libya)
* Sonatrach (Algeria)
…When the U.S. government prevents domestic energy firms to explore and develop this country’s incredibly abundant resources - we are “the Saudi Arabia of coal” and could be swimming in cheap gas if we developed our plentiful oil shale resources - Americans are forced to import more foreign oil.
Compare that to this report from USA Today about the population and financial boom in North Dakota, which has far less federally-owned lands than other resource-rich states like Colorado, Utah and Wyoming:
The superstar of North Dakota is its economy. The state’s unemployment rate hasn’t touched 5 percent since 1987. The state’s per capita income rose over the decade from 38th in the nation to 17th, the biggest advance of any state.
“We’ve had an absolutely stellar few years,” says University of North Dakota economist David Flynn. “In all honesty, when you look ahead, we should continue to do well for quite a while.”
North Dakota is enjoying an oil boom in the western part of the state, drawing workers from across the country. Williston, in oil country, grew 17.6 percent to 14,716. The oil windfall has created a $1 billion state budget surplus.
And this good news in the Land of Enchantment:
The New Mexico Land Office has collected $9.5 million from oil and natural gas lease sales during the first quarter, with more than half of that coming from this month’s sale.
The Land Office said the sale held Tuesday in Santa Fe raised more than $5.5 million for 40 tracts of land in Eddy and Lea counties.
And this:
“We’re increasing in Montana by thousands of jobs in drilling in what’s called the Bakken (Shale Formation) in eastern Montana (where there also less federally-owned land than in the western part of the state),” the state’s Governor Brian Schweitzer told Fox News. “It is the richest geologic structure in all of the United States. Recent estimates are that there’s about 25 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana. To put that in perspective we import about 4 billion barrels a year. We use about 6 billon barrels a year. So this one structure in North Dakota and Montana could be one of the keys to energy independence in the short term.”
It’s no coincidence that Montana and North Dakota are the only two states in the Union with budget surpluses at a time when others are slashing spending just to stay afloat. At a time when most states are dealing with an unemployment crisis, North Dakota boasted a 3.9 percent unemployment rate in 2010, the lowest in the nation for the third straight year….
Kathleen Sgamma (of the Western Energy Alliance) said this promising picture could be even better than it is. Much of the lands in production in the Niobrara and Bakken formations are privately owned, which greatly decreases permitting red tape for companies wanting to drill. On federal and tribal lands, she said the process is much more difficult and therefore far longer.
“Because of certain regulatory efforts by this administration, particularly on the Department of the Interior and the EPA, western producers were prevented from investing about 3.9-billion dollars in 2010 and that translates roughly into 16,200 jobs,” she said.
So instead of providing access for more energy development and job growth, the administration hoards land, and gives taxpayer money to subsidize wind and solar energy that ends up killing jobs. And the unnecessarily large oil imports continue. Let’s find the Federal Government a Realtor since it clearly has no idea how to manage our land for us.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
JP| 3.17.11 @ 12:17PM
The federal government could reap a trillion dollars annually in royalty fees alone if it leased its lands out to energy companies. China would be the biggest energy customer, and with that in mind the federal government could rapidly reduce its budget defecit. If it combined realistic cuts in domestic spending with the land leases, it could run surpluses.
GO figure.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.17.11 @ 12:22PM
But JP, this makes entirely too much sense. Therefore, it must be ruled out as an option.
Mike | 3.17.11 @ 4:53PM
Accepting your assumption, JP, why shouldn't we expect a replay of what happened in the past. The Federal government has a surplus. Checks are mailed to American taxpayers, taxes are cut and, well, we've seen this movie before.
Deborah D | 3.18.11 @ 11:48AM
So -- don't try it, right? I love it when liberals say there's just no answer to our problems, so don't even attempt to try to solve anything. It's windmills and solar panels while we all freeze to death in the dark. Sheesh.
David T| 3.17.11 @ 12:28PM
Remember Reagan's Interior Secretary James Watt? He was crucified by the Left for suggesting that the federal government sell about 2% of its land in the West to private interests.
Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 1:24PM
Time to crucify the left.
Larry| 3.17.11 @ 12:52PM
Obama's statements on oil and gas drilling and Federal land leasing should be regular fare for the "Current Wisdom" section of TAS. Bob Tyrell, do your thing!! Lol!
Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 1:23PM
This should be a HUGE 2012 issue. This is where Palin and Bachmann shine. We have huge supplies of oil, gas and coal. Enough for 1 or 2 hundred years. That should buy us plenty of time for something like hydrogen power or zero-point energy to take over. We can lease the land and make some money on the leases.
On a similar not, we have millions of BLM land. There is no reason for the federal government to have that land. We no longer have those open ranges. The feds do not take care of this land. They are fire hazards for example. The fed is a poor neighbor. Sell that BLM land. All of it.
H. Sterling Burnett | 3.17.11 @ 3:12PM
The government's mismanagement of public lands has long been evident. As I have argued in a number of papers well enforced, well-defined private property rights are often the best guarantors of environmental quality. I proposed selling select public lands in a 2007 paper (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st295) and suggested private and/or alternative management regimes that would bring market incentives to bear on forest management as far back as 1998 (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st295).
Al Adab| 3.17.11 @ 3:40PM
Auction off the gas and oil leases as well, for a percentge possibly? Many parcels of the Federal land could be sold but as with the leases it is IMPERATIVE that the funds ONLY go to debt reduction NOT to any general fund purposes.
Deborah D | 3.18.11 @ 11:50AM
Amen, Al!
CalMark| 3.17.11 @ 3:53PM
If only it were that simple in Washington.
The Founders intended that it should be.
But then...the Founders didn't foresee all the Penumbras with which the likes of Pelosi (tyrant), Reid (snake), and Boehner/Cantor/etc. (spineless) ignore the Constitution.
Deborah D | 3.17.11 @ 4:50PM
Hey -- Walter Williams said instead of giving folks their Social Security perhaps the government should give Americans 100 acres of land. I stake my claim in the Bakken area!! Let's get creative!!
Aarradin| 3.17.11 @ 6:48PM
Who owns the west? Check this out:
http://www.americanthinker.com.....st_16.html
Why does the federal government own so much land? I'm sure this wasn't all acquired under the Antiquities Act.
Could a President simply give it all to the States?
Can a State pass a law taking some/all of its land back from the feds?
Unless there's a military base sitting on the land, I don't see any reason why the feds should own even an acre of land in any State. Even then, they could/should be leasing the land from the State for their base.