News Focus
News Focus
icon url

tinner

12/15/06 11:04 AM

#232070 RE: sortagreen #232066

Anoher of his boy's wonderful policies!

Criminal Inquiries Look at U.S. Oil-Gas Unit
E-MailPrint Reprints Save Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: December 15, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 — The Justice Department has begun two criminal investigations into the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, which is already the focus of several inquiries into its collection of royalties for oil and gas produced on federal property.


Jamie Rose for The New York Times
Earl E. Devaney is an Interior Department inspector general.


Blog
The Caucus
Kate Phillips and The Times's politics staff are analyzing the midterm elections and looking ahead to 2008.

More Politics NewsThe new investigations are still in the early stages, said Congressional officials who were briefed this week by Earl E. Devaney, the Interior Department’s chief independent investigator.

The investigations are an unexpected development in what has already become a broad examination of the Interior Department’s oversight of companies that pump more than $60 billion worth of oil and gas each year from publicly owned land and coastal waters.

One Justice inquiry involves Interior Department officials in Denver who manage the government’s fast-growing program to collect “royalties in kind,” which are royalties in the form of oil and gas rather than in financial payments, people briefed on the investigation said.

That investigation is being run by the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, which examines suspected criminal violations by federal employees. The focus of the second investigation is unclear, but it is being conducted by the inspector general with help from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Devaney, the department’s inspector general, is already conducting two other investigations into suspected mismanagement of the minerals agency. And just last week, he issued a scathing criticism of the agency’s system for auditing oil and gas royalty payments.

Mr. Devaney is also finishing up an investigation into how the Interior Department signed 1,100 oil and gas leases in the late 1990s that inadvertently permitted companies to avoid up to $10 billion in royalties over the next five years. The errors were made during the Clinton administration, but people briefed on Mr. Devaney’s investigation said he had concluded that high-ranking agency officials either knew or should have known about the problem at least two years ago.

Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said Thursday in a statement that Mr. Devaney had briefed his staff.

“The two criminal referrals by the Department of Interior’s inspector general to the F.B.I. and Justice Department are proof positive that the conflicts of interest between Bush administration regulators and those they regulate in the oil and gas industry are costing the American taxpayers billions in royalty revenues,” Mr. Markey said.

Word of the criminal investigations surfaced just as the Interior Department announced Thursday that five big oil producers had voluntarily renegotiated leases and agreed to not exploit a loophole that could save them hundreds of millions of dollars each.

The leases gave companies an incentive to drill in deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico by letting them skip royalties on millions of barrels of oil and gas. But the leases omitted a standard escape clause that would have required the companies to pay in full if oil prices rose above about $34 a barrel. Interior officials have said the mistake, if left unchanged, could cost the government as much as $10 billion.

The Interior Department said Thursday that it had concluded new deals with BP, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil, Royal Dutch Shell and Walter Oil and Gas. Those companies hold about 17 percent of the flawed leases, according to Interior data.

But about 50 other companies have not yet agreed to change their leases. Among them is Chevron, one of the biggest potential beneficiaries of the error. Chevron and several partners could save more than $1 billion in royalties in years to come if the lease language is not changed.

Don Campbell, a spokesman for Chevron, said company executives had met several times with government officials to resolve the matter. Mr. Campbell said his company “put a reasonable offer forward” and would “look forward to further discussions.”

The new agreements did little to mollify the Interior Department’s Republican and Democratic critics in Congress.

The incoming Democratic chairman and the retiring Republican chairman of the House Government Reform Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, suggesting that the leases might never have been valid and that the government might be able to force the companies to pay up.

Officials have provided few details about the new criminal investigations, except to say they are “related” to previous inquiries of the royalty-management program.

Started about six years ago, the royalty-in-kind program has become a multibillion trading program run from Denver. Since President Bush took office, Interior officials and many of the industry’s biggest producers have argued that the government should collect as much of its royalties as possible through “in kind” payments because, they say, the accounting is much simpler.

In 2005, the Interior Department collected about $3 billion worth of royalties in oil and gas — about a third of the total. The government funnels much of the oil it receives to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but it sells virtually all its natural gas and sends the cash to the Treasury.

Congressional officials briefed this week by Mr. Devaney said he had cautioned that both of the criminal investigations would last several more months. Mr. Devaney said it was possible the investigations would not lead to criminal charges, though he suggested that they should at least lead to disciplinary actions.

icon url

jawmoke

12/15/06 11:11 AM

#232075 RE: sortagreen #232066

"The US has conquered a major, largely untapped oil supply, and at the top they have no intention of returning it."

well, I wondered why they were building permanent type bases there...:)

imho, the invasion of iraq was a purely globalist/zionist move.

the profits generated from the military sales and the existence of oil are just a "nice" side benefit...

iraq is just another stepping stone for the nwo

is it true the vatican owns jerusalem now? read that somewhere...

the middle east or at least parts of it are a very special objective.. can't quite get why yet...




icon url

daytraderkidd

12/15/06 11:18 AM

#232077 RE: sortagreen #232066

These guys say they support a war to bring democracy abroad yet they don't support democracy right here at home. And ofcourse we know people like nosey will support any war they don't have to fight in.
icon url

Razorbucks

12/15/06 11:38 AM

#232081 RE: sortagreen #232066

I'm tired of your crap, green

It's free speech as long as you're a democrat.
It's not a crime as long as you're a democrat.

Read the book, The Winter Soldier (if you can find it). Kerry is an anti-American, anti-military, pro-UN, pro-enemy and has continually been on the wrong side of history. He's nothing more than a gigolo from Massachusetts that thinks he's an intellectual. He went to Vietnam for his aspirations to be president and then ventured to France to discuss surrender with his friends, the communists, against the wishes of the Commander and Chief. He's a traitor. He voted for the war and against funding.

It would be nice if the liberal democrats would scrutinize the enemy as close as they scrutinize our troops like Hanoi Kerry.

Just remember, you get stuck in Iraq. That statement is from the heart of that clown that should have been hung for treason. Most veterans are against Kerry. I have plenty in my family that served that would agree, and they got more than a splinter in "combat" during their service.


KERRY: "(Saddam Hussein) is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." (Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)

KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

KERRY: "I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

KERRY: "I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

KERRY: "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)


KERRY: "And the fact is, in the resolution that we passed, we did not empower the President to do regime change." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/31/03)

KERRY: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they're on the right track. There's a way to do this properly. But I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/14/03)

John Kerry Voted "NAY"
S. 1689 10/17/03
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
For Iraq and Afghanistan Security & Reconstruction (S. 1689, CQ Vote No. 400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" (MSNBC's "Hardball," 1/6/04)
KERRY: "I am - Yeah." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 1/6/04)


KERRY: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it ..." (Glen Johnson, "Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops," The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)


As typical with Democrats, politics over National Security. Liberalism is the culture of hate.


Feb 18, 1970: “I’m an internationalist. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”


KERRY'S LIE ABOUT HIS FELLOW SERVICEMEN

Apr 1971: "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals."

"Our democracy is a farce; it is not the best in the world." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/22/90429.shtml

Why the hell is John Kerry still in America if he doesn't love his land. His record is telling.

The man you're defending: and now, he's bashing America so Iran will be his friend. Traitor indeed.