Scrutiny for security?
Posted January 7, 2010 at 8:36 am 
Filed in: This morning’s NYT runs a piece entitled Interior Chief Vows Scrutiny of Oil and Gas Leases (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/business/energy-environment/07lease.html?ref=energy-environment) that deserves attention from those who care about energy security — as well as oversight from Congress to see whether the scrutiny accomplishes the good intentions expressed by Secretary Ken Salazar.
Secretary Salazar’s discussion of the new policy had both red meat for NIMBYs and reassurance, hopefully more than bones, for those who hope to see responsible development of US energy resources. The NIMBY red meat includes the Secretary “declaring that the agency would no longer be a “candy store” for the petroleum industry, as he said it had been during the Bush administration.” And more:
“The previous administration’s ‘anywhere, anyhow’ policy on oil and gas development ran afoul of communities, carved up the landscape and fueled costly conflicts that created uncertainty for investors and industry.” And more:
“In the prior administration the oil and gas industry essentially were the kings of the world. Whatever they wanted to happen, happened. The agency was essentially the handmaiden of the industry.”
On the other hand, the Secretary’s explanation of the new policy “more rigorous reviews of oil and gas leasing on public lands” sounds reasonable: an “increase” in the time leasing decisions will take but a reduction in “the number of public and court challenges to leasing decisions.”
The NYT paraphrases the Secretary citing “in 2008, some 40 percent of rulings to permit or deny drilling rights were challenged by one or more parties, compared with only 1 percent in 1998.” A year-by-year statistical review might be more meaningful than citing the last year of the Bush Administration — when presumably court challenges were motivated by the hope that a new Administration would have a different view of leasing. Nonetheless, the disparity between 2008 and 1998 is telling.
The article goes on to assert that many “auditors and judges have found that previous decisions were made arbitrarily and with little consultation with other agencies. Under the new guidelines, teams from several agencies will consult and officials will physically inspect the sites rather than making decisions from behind their desks, said Bob Abbey, the bureau’s director.” That all sounds great, and one hopes the Administration’s forthcoming budget request will contain sufficient resources to make that happen. That will be the first sign that the policy is intended to enhance our energy security rather than just enable NYMBism — and probably the first opportunity for Congress to exercise meaningful oversight.
Initial reaction from Congressional leadership was, as one would expect, positive:
“The chairmen of the House and Senate natural resources committees praised the new policy, saying it would bring certainty to leasing decisions while assuring continued development of domestic oil and gas resources.”
The American Petroleum Institute, the key trade group led by Washington veteran Jack Gerard, was more skeptical: “Under the guise of offering certainty for investors, Interior Secretary Salazar has taken steps to further delay and limit American energy resources for all Americans.”
The good news is we don’t have to choose sides in this argument based on faith or bias. As the policy is implemented, the congressional appropriations process should be able to ensure that adequate resources are provided. And congressional oversight should be able to demonstrate empirically whether it is accomplishing the worthy goal — reducing litigation and enhancing our energy security — set out by Secretary Salazar. Stay tuned.
Previous Post
May 18, 2012
