At the listening sessions I hold in every county of the state each year, Wisconsinites are rightly demanding action to lower the soaring oil prices that are devastating consumers at the pump and sending a rippling effect through our entire economy.
In the long term, we have to aggressively pursue alternative fuels, renewable energy, and energy efficiency to solve the energy crisis. But there are also some things we can do in the short term to help the many Wisconsinites who are struggling to provide for their day-to-day needs because of high gas prices.
For starters, one of the quickest ways to increase oil production is by focusing on lands already under lease by oil companies. Oil companies collectively are not producing on about three-quarters of the federal lands and waters they have under lease. That's 68 million acres of lands and water that could potentially be producing oil, where leases have already been issued and miles and miles of pipeline and other infrastructure are already in place.
To help spur oil development on these lands, I introduced "use it or lose it" legislation requiring oil companies to show they are either producing oil or gas on current leases, or making progress on exploring and developing those leases, before they obtain more federal leases.
Coal companies already comply with requirements that they diligently develop federally leased lands - why should oil companies be given special treatment? My bill would create industry-wide accountability standards, which many of the oil companies say they are already capable of meeting.
Oil companies continue to ask for more federal lands when they aren't producing oil on most of their current leases. The federal government has supported drilling on these lands in recent years by increasing the number of drilling permits for public lands by 361 percent from 1999 to 2007.
As a result, oil companies now sit on nearly 10,000 unused permits from the Bureau of Land Management that they could use immediately to drill.
This failure to produce oil is even more surprising given that an oil executive told me at a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that they have the manpower and infrastructure to put all their existing leases of federal lands into oil production.
I support responsible efforts to increase domestic production. But in the long term, the solution to our energy crisis is to end what the president has called our addiction to oil. The president's own Energy Information Administration has found that, even if we open up all offshore areas currently off-limits, there would be an insignificant effect on oil prices.
We're already the third-biggest producer of oil in the world, but with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, we simply cannot drill ourselves out of the problem.
We must diversify our energy portfolio - particularly in the transportation sector where 70 percent of oil is used. We need a real investment in alternative fuels and renewable energies and an emphasis on conservation and efficiency. Wisconsin has been a national leader in these areas, and that's something that can boost our economy in the long run by providing green jobs and energy security. I will continue to push on all fronts for policies that address high gas prices and move us toward renewable energy sources.
U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold represents Wisconsin.



9 Comments
Absolutely correct. As well, let's tie the lease rate to the price of oil, and let's add a late charge to the royalties not paid.
Senator,
This proposal to somehow force oil companies to drill on leased lands may sway some people to believe it is a real answer to a lack of American oil production, but I don't believe it. You say the EIA found that opening up production in off-shore would have very little effect on price. How could that same argument not be used on this proposal.
First of all, this whole issue of offshore drilling needs to be exposed for the bogus issue it is. Offshore drilling is not economically feasible. That's why the oil companies don't have any interest in doing more of it. It's all a prop for the McCain campaign, rather than a legitimate strategy to make us less dependent on the Middle East. One hurricane in the Atlantic can wipe away an entire offshore oil operation. Then there's the issue of pipeline and shipping. Not to mention the bottleneck in refinery capacity. There will be absolutely no relief so ever to come from advocating for more offshore drilling. The oil companies don't even want to do it, and even if they did, they'd sell as much of it to China and India as the market dictates, rather than keeping it in America. Let's move this conversation to a new place - reality. We need investments in alternative fuels and conservation.
It is my sincere wish that Senator Feingold stop embarrassing himself and Wisconsin. We are not a state of rubes that blindly believe each and every stunt our representatives heap on us.
These 'idle' leases are far from idle and Senator Feingold knows this. He also knows the leases ALREADY have time limits and revert back to the government, I believe 10 years is the average time limit. Big talk to pass a bill to do something that already exists.
He also knows these 'idle' leases require billions to explore and map to gauge if there are viable commercial quantities to start production. The government classifies the exploration as 'idle' when it is anything but that. On top of this they have only leased the most difficult areas for exploration making the expense and feasibility doubly difficult.
These companies still have to apply for and purchase the right to 'explore' in addition to purchasing the lease. But I'm sure the senator explained this in his town hall meetings as well. I'm sure he also mentioned the difficulty our representatives place on getting the permits to explore.
The senator also knows that roughly 80% of the 'easily' explored and potentially developable land is off limits to exploration or has severe restrictions that make exploration all but impossible. Restrictions set in place by our represtatives.
If the senator was truly looking out for us, he would introduce legislation that opens the door to exploration of all viable lands so at a minimum we can see what is truly available and where.
Our government puts all this burden on these companies and the company has no guarantee of every finding a drop of usable resource for their trouble. Potentially billions spent with no return.
So, in sum, if the senator did not know this easily obtainable information then we have a poor representative at best. At worst..., well I'll leave that up to other's opinion.
Senator, stop the crap, be the 'maverick' you told us you are and TRULY open up the resources. That would be impressive.
Bob, oil companies lease land they intend not to drill on so they can increase their net worth and shareholder value. Nothing more. Feingold is right on target. They need to use it or lose it, and if they intend not to drill they should welcome the reduced rents.
And congress should go further. See "Politicians should protect the public with new Oil-USA option" at http://tinyurl.com/yr2vfd
Jack Lohman
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
I have to disagree Jack. All impediments to expanded exploration, recovery and refining are a direct result of government policy and cowtowing to environmentalists that do not truly care about the world environment (if they did care we would not buy another foreign drop since we have much higher controls and standards: and we enforce them).
Are you aware the US produces 800,000 less barrels per day in 2008 than we did in 2000. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2m.htm
Why? Because we have consistently bought from cheaper over seas producers to avoid drilling at home. Permits for drilling are hard to get (only 2,500 per year in the last decade). What does not make sense is that the number of active rigs has nearly tripled since 2000. Apparently that little detail will not make the news or be spoken of by Feingold since it would appear the big bad oil companies have already increased exploration. But that would not allow government to shift blame from their own poor, short sighted policies. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/e_ertrr0_xr0_nus_cm.htm
I realize drilling to explore is far different from drilling to produce. But Feingold has access to these numbers (it took me under 30 seconds). Heck, my daughter found some of the information in less time than that. And get this, these are the government's numbers, not sourced from some biased blogger (not a poke at you). Tell again why Feingold is not an embarrassment. Of course, I'm assuming he knows how to use a computer.
Let's not even get started on the restrictions placed on building a refinery.
So we're back to Feingold and his ilk blowing more hot air and taxpayor salary on do nothing bloviating. "I have legislation to take away the land leases", what a moronic thing to say! THEY gave them the leases and they control the land and they control the extensions. Gee, let's pass a law to give us what we already have. As a taxpayor, I want my money back for every minute they wasted on this little slice of legislative heaven.
The government could open up land. They could approve more than 25,000 permits in the last 10 years. They could allow a new refinery or two. They could do A LOT more. They could do more to help you and me but alas; they only care about their agenda and not the people.
I won't be the one to defend the oil companies. I have no doubt they have an agenda as well. But before our representatives start pointing they better grab a mirror and own up to their poor decisions.
So yes, while our representatives spend our money shifting blame for their policy shortsightedness on oil companies. You and I suffer.
Tell me again why Feingold is on the right track? Quite frankly, he and his ilk would do us all a good turn by getting the he!! out of the way. Our country has literally moved mountains during it's short history, apparently our politicians are an even tougher task.
Indeed the environmentalists are part of the problem, Bob, but there are plenty of places the oil companies can drill, even doing a deal with other countries. But I don't think they want to. That would lower prices and profits.
With them it's two steps forward on prices, one step back, and repeat as necessary until you get all their money. I believe we should open up offshore drilling, plus put all of the alternative sources on the table.
FYI See: "A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading" at http://tinyurl.com/6emukq
We need to ban speculators on the legal basis that they are conspiracies.
Regarding Feingold's comment "oil companies now sit on nearly 10,000 unused permits from the Bureau of Land Management that they could use immediately to drill". Does he mean 10,000 permits with proven reserves, or permits with dry holes? Be specific Senator.
Re: Jack Lohman's comment that we "ban speculators on the legal basis that they are conspiracies". Where is the proof that speculators are conspirators? Where are the convicted conspirators? I thought this was still a free country where you are innocent until proven guilty. Also, have you noticed lately that oil prices are going down? Did all the speculators go on vacation? While you are at it, why not ban speculators in other commodities and stocks? This is just a red herring by the left to cover their opposition for more drilling.
Finally, as to John Wolters claiming that "offshore drilling is not economically feasible"- that's absurd. If that were so, nobody would be starting any new offshore drilling anywhere in the world due to economics, and that is certainly not the case. To prove your point, why not allow offshore drilling, let's see if the oil companies decide to pass on the opportunity due to your oil economics expertise.
Yes, I know Bill. We live in a free market where we tolerate hording to drive prices up and then dumping. Where assets of the weak are consumed by the strong. Yes, it works when big fish eat the smaller fish, but I'm not happy with that philosophy with the humans we expect to have compassion.