[Dialogue] Report Says Oil Royalties Go Unpaid

[Harry Wainwright]

 <http://www.nytimes.com/>  <http://www.nytimes.com/> The New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/> 

 




  _____  

December 7, 2006

Report Says Oil Royalties Go Unpaid 

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/edmund_l_andre
ws/index.html?inline=nyt-per> 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — An eight-month investigation by the Interior Department
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/interio
r_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org> ’s chief watchdog has found
pervasive problems in the government’s program for ensuring that companies
pay the royalties they owe on billions of dollars of oil and gas pumped on
federal land and in coastal waters.

In a scathing report to Congress, the Interior Department’s inspector
general says the agency’s data are often inaccurate, that its officials rely
too heavily on statements by oil companies rather than actual records and
that only about 9 percent of all oil and gas leases are being reviewed.

The report undermines claims by top Interior officials that the department
is aggressively pursuing underpayments and outright cheating by companies
that drill on property owned by the American public.

And though investigators did not attempt to estimate the amount of money
that the government might be losing, they cited a host of weaknesses that
make the government vulnerable to being short-changed.

Interior officials defended the program on Wednesday, but announced that
they would develop “an action plan” to address the inspector general’s
recommendations.

The report comes as lawmakers in both parties have been attacking the
Interior Department for failing to correct blunders that department
officials now concede could cost the government as much as $10 billion over
the next five years.

It also reinforces complaints by critics, from auditors within the agency to
lawmakers in both parties, who have said that enforcement has become
superficial, prone to errors and overly deferential to oil companies.

These are among the inspector general’s findings:

¶ Since 2000, the number of audits has declined by 22 percent and the number
of auditors has been reduced by 15 percent, even though soaring energy
prices have doubled the total amount of money at stake, to about $10 billion
a year.

¶ Though the Interior Department says it has “reviewed” about 72 percent of
all revenues from federal leases, it actually examined only 9 percent of all
properties and 20 percent of all companies.

¶ The department’s “compliance review” system, a computerized form of
fact-checking that has increasingly replaced audits, essentially relies on
the word of the oil companies being monitored. Officials conducting such
reviews do not ask companies for their actual records.

¶ Government data are incomplete and often inaccurate, making it almost
impossible for enforcement officials to develop strategies for selecting
companies for special scrutiny. 

The report said the agency’s follow-up efforts were often sketchy, because
officials who identified underpayments by companies did not have a procedure
for verifying that the agency actually billed the companies or collected the
money.

It also said the agency’s statistics about recovering money were incomplete,
inaccurate and sometimes misleading. The investigators said they could not
even determine how many audits the government completed each year or whether
the government recovered as much it had identified in underpayments.

In response to the report, the Interior Department said it was preparing a
“comprehensive plan” to act on many of the recommendations. In a written
statement, the department’s Minerals Management Service, which oversees the
royalty collection program, said it would deliver the plan to the inspector
general within 30 days.

“We appreciate the work of the Inspector General’s office,” Johnnie M.
Burton, director of the department’s Minerals Management Service, said in a
written statement.

Last month, the Interior Department said that it had created an independent
advisory panel to review complaints about the royalty program. But at the
time, officials said they did not believe there were serious problems. 

“While I think there’s a lot of room for improvement, I’ve not been able to
find anything that’s drastically wrong,” C. Stephen Allred, assistant
secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management, said in an
interview last month.

The new panel will be led by a man with close ties to the oil industry,
David T. Deal, a former assistant general counsel for the American Petroleum
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/america
n_petroleum_institute/index.html?inline=nyt-org>  Institute.

Democratic lawmakers said the new report amounted to a broad indictment of
the Interior Department’s unwillingness to scrutinize oil companies and
protect the interests of taxpayers.

“This report is a blistering, scalding indictment of the Minerals Management
Service,” said Representative Edward J. Markey
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/edward_j_marke
y/index.html?inline=nyt-per> , Democrat of Massachusetts and a longtime
critic of the Interior Department’s handling of the royalty program. “It
says that, rather than being a cop on the beat, they were turning a blind
eye to obvious flaws in the auditing system.” 

Representative Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of New York and a member of the
House Government Reform Committee, said the report would lead to broader
investigations of the oil and gas leasing program when Democrats
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democra
tic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org>  take control of the House and Senate
in January.

“That gushing sound you hear is our government leaking royalties owed to
American taxpayers from the oil and gas companies,” Ms. Maloney said
Wednesday. “They are going to have some explaining to do next year when
there’s new leadership in Congress.”

Since President Bush took office, the Interior Department has shifted as
much enforcement effort as possible from traditional audits of oil companies
to the computerized “compliance review” system. 

The new report is the result of an investigation that began in March, in
response to questions posed by the Senate Energy Committee after The New
York Times reported that royalties for natural gas had climbed far more
slowly than market prices and that both federal and state auditors were
complaining that the new system was inadequate.

Earl E. Devaney, the Interior Department’s inspector general, has sharply
criticized the department on numerous occasions. In 2004, his office
described the royalty auditing program as frequently unprofessional, with
auditors who were often unqualified and supervisors who were often
ineffective.

In September, Mr. Devaney told the House Government Reform Committee that
the Interior Department had tolerated cronyism, ethical breaches and
cover-ups of major management blunders.

The new report does not condemn the department’s growing use of “compliance
review,” noting that the Internal Revenue
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/interna
l_revenue_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org>  Service has long used
computerized systems to spot signs of cheating.

“Compliance reviews are a legitimate tool for evaluating the reasonableness
of company-reported royalties,” the report said.

But the investigators warned that the reviews “do not provide the same level
of assurance as an audit, and should only be used in conjunction with
audits.”

When asked by the Senate Energy Committee whether the agency was spending
enough money to do its job properly, the investigators said they could not
answer because the agency “lacked reliable information to allow us to
conduct such an analysis.”

 

Copyright <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html>
2006 The New York Times Company <http://www.nytco.com/>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20061207/52d795b8/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1810 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20061207/52d795b8/attachment-0001.gif