Mr. Erik Milito - The House Committee on Natural Resources ...

oost domestic production by four million barrels of oil equivalent a day,
according to the Wood Mackenzie study, “U.S. Supply Forecast and Potential Jobs
and Economic Impacts (2012-2030).” A copy of this study is provided for
consideration by the subcommittee. In an earlier Wood Mackenzie study,
“Energy Policy at a Crossroads: An Assessment of the Impacts of Increased Access
versus Higher Taxes on U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Production, Government Revenue
and Employment,” they found that raising taxes on the industry with no increase
in access could reduce domestic production by 700,000 barrels of oil equivalent a
day (in 2020), sacrifice as many as 48,000 jobs, and reduce revenue to the
government by billions of dollars annually. An additional 1.7 million barrels of oil
equivalent a day in potential production that is currently of marginal economic
feasibility would be at greater risk of not being developed under the modeled tax
increase. A copy of this study is provided as well.
Furthermore, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently concluded
in a March 2, 2012 report entitled “Oil and Natural Gas Industry Tax Issues in the
FY2013 Budget Proposal” that the Administration’s tax proposals would “make oil
and natural gas more expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase foreign
dependence.” On Saturday, the President stated that a vote for his tax proposal
would show that you “stand up for the American people.” Yet it is this same tax
proposal that would destroy domestic production, destroy jobs, destroy
government revenue and, according to CRS, make oil and natural gas more
expensive and make us more dependent on foreign energy. <strong>The</strong> American people
get it, as poll after poll shows that the American public opposes increased taxes
on America’s oil and natural gas industry, with most Americans agreeing that
increasing taxes would destroy jobs.
In addition to maintaining an effective tax structure and improving access
to U.S. resources, we must also ensure that we have streamlined permitting and
regulatory certainty to ensure continued job creation and a regulatory climate
that encourages investment in U.S. projects.
However, the federal government has taken step after step to decrease
leasing, decrease permitting, and introduce uncertainty into the regulatory
process to effectively place a drag on both short-term and long-term energy
production, in both onshore and offshore areas. With respect to BLM-managed
lands in particular, the picture is not promising.
3