by Lee Fang, via the Republic Report

When oil companies need help in Washington, they call Jack Gerard. But in January of next year, assuming he wins the presidency, Mitt Romney may be dialing Gerard for political support. According to media reports in his native Idaho, Gerard is on the shortlist to become Romney’s White House chief of staff.

Gerard is the president of the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil lobbying associations in the country. Using a budget that is rumored to be in the hundreds of millions (funded by all of the major oil companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, etc.), Gerard finances pro-oil propaganda on network television, academic studies to promote his policy positions, front groups to hold rallies in pivotal swing states, and of course a large teams of lobbyists from D.C. to over a dozen state capitals across the country. For his work, he’s one of the highest paid lobbyists in the Beltway, making $6.4 million in 2010 alone.

Rumors are against circulating that Gerard, a prominent Mormon and close ally to the Romney campaign, may be selected to take the top slot in a Romney administration. And there’s other evidence that Gerard has already ingratiated himself with the Romney campaign:

– Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) told the Idaho Statesman that he thinks Gerard may be selected as Romney’s chief of staff. “Gerard is a heckuva player in Washington, D.C.,” Risch told the newspaper. “He’s well thought of, well connected, has incredible street cred. He’s certainly got the qualifications to do any of that.”

– Former Senator Jim McClure (R-ID), Gerard’s former boss when he worked on Capitol Hill, predicted that Gerard would be Romney’s chief of staff had he won in 2008.

– Breaking a tradition of trade association nonpartisanship, Gerard endorsed Romney during the Republican primaries this year, and indicated the he is close to the Romney family.

– Jack Gerard’s son, who shares the same name, is now a spokesman for the Romney campaign.

The Romney campaign, like most political campaigns, has remained largely silent about its future staffing plans.

Lee Fang is a reporter with the Republic Report. This piece was originally published at the Republic Report and was reprinted with permission.

by Daniel J. Weiss

The Department of Interior released an updated analysis of fossil fuel leases today, finding that more than two thirds of offshore leases and half of onshore leases are sitting idle — “neither producing nor under active exploration.”

The report, “Oil and Gas Lease Utilization, Onshore and Offshore Updated Report to the President,” explained that oil and gas companies hold thousands of undeveloped leases. Despite holding these inactive leases, the oil industry continues to demand the opening of new, previously protected federal lands and waters areas to drilling.

The report found that:

More than 70 percent of the tens of millions of offshore acres currently under lease are inactive, neither producing nor currently subject to approved or pending exploration or development plans. Out of nearly 36 million acres leased offshore, only about 10 million acres are active – leaving nearly 72 percent of the offshore leased area idle.

In the lower 48 states, an additional 20.8 million acres, or 56 percent of onshore leased acres, remain idle. Furthermore, there are approximately 7,000 approved permits for drilling on federal and Indian lands that have not yet been drilled by companies.

According to the Energy Information Administration, total federal oil production (offshore and onshore) has increased by 13 percent during the first three years of the Obama administration combined, compared with the last three years of the previous administration. According to independent analysis, the total number of active rigs operating on the U.S. outer continental shelf was higher in January 2012 than any time since May 2010.

The American Petroleum Institute – Big Oil’s lobbying arm — claims that the Department of Interior ignores exploratory work on leases; however, that is clearly included in DOI’s assessment above.

API recently demanded that the Obama Administration open up the North Atlantic to “seismic exploration” for oil. This is an area that supports vital American fisheries.

In addition to holding thousands of undeveloped leases while lobbying to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off the New England Coast, and in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the big five oil companies produced 12 percent less oil in 2011 than in 2006 — all while making record profits.

Daniel J. Weiss is Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

by Kiley Kroh and Michael Conathan

Yesterday, former members of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling released a report card evaluating the progress made by the federal government, Congress, and industry toward implementing the critical reforms recommended by the Commission in their 2011 report.

None of them make the honor roll. While the harshest rebukes were aimed at Congress, the report card finds that overall, “in every category, much more needs to be done.”

Big Oil, on the other hand, touted the reforms made by the oil and gas industry. Oil & Gas Journal reported “the industry has always demonstrated a strong commitment to operate safely and responsibly offshore, and has deepened that [sic] the commitment in the nearly 2 years since the Macondo well accident.”

Erik Milito, API’s upstream and industry operations group director, said “the bar continues to rise, the commitment is stronger, and the mechanisms are in place to support the strongest safety standards possible.”

Such assurances from API are dubious at best, considering the Commission’s 2011 report found a direct causal relationship between API’s role as the industry’s principal lobbyist and public policy advocate and “compromised” safety standards that were a direct contributor to the BP disaster:

API’s proffered safety and technical standards were a major casualty of this conflicted role … Because the Interior Department has in turn relied on API in developing its own regulatory safety standards, API’s shortfalls have undermined the entire federal regulatory system.

John Watson, CEO of oil giant Chevron, told USA Today that he’s confident production can occur safely, saying, “we’ve learned from the Macondo incident and others and have steadily improved our practices as an industry. We’re in a much better position as an industry today than we were a few years ago.”

That’s a questionable self-evaluation from a company recently slapped with an $11 billion lawsuit and criminal charges for a November 2011 spill off the coast Brazil and responsible for setting the ocean ablaze with a natural gas fire in Nigeria this year that burned for 46 days and took the lives of two workers.

While both the federal government and industry have taken steps to improve the serious shortfalls in safety and oversight that led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, a great deal remains to be done – especially as the industry looks to move into frontier areas like the Arctic that are fraught with uncertainty and risk.

The Commission gave the administration an overall grade of B, industry a C+ and Congress a D. (The ocean conservation group Oceana released a similar report card yesterday comprised of nothing but D’s and F’s.)

Let’s take a look at the commission’s findings.

Read more

Mitt Romney has adopted a Big Oil platform for the elections, appointing oil shale billionaire Harold Hamm as an energy adviser and fully embracing the House Republican budget, which preserves tax loopholes for the industry.

Illustrating the candidate’s ties to the oil industry further, Big Oil’s chief spokesman, API President Jack Gerard, has long backed Mitt Romney. Gerard and his family have donated $7,440 to the Romney campaign, and the campaign in turn has publicly thanked Gerard:

On Super Tuesday, Ann Romney publicly thanked him for helping her husband in his bid for the presidency. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets Web site, Gerard has given $2,470 to Romney and his family members have given $4,970 for the 2012 campaign. He has raised much more by hosting fundraisers, including one at the District Chop House in 2010. He was a supporter of Romney in 2008, too, and some former API employees think he hopes to land a job in a Romney administration.

“Romney has a business background that would be helpful to get us back on track,” Gerard says. “They’ve asked us to support them, and we have. They’re good people.” He and his wife “believe the president’s approach to date is not consistent with what the people need or the country needs for sound energy policy.”

The candidate has pulled some serious support from the oil and gas industry, taking more than $750,000 from oil and gas and another $1 million for the pro-Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future.

API promised to play a heavy hand this election cycle and has dropped $4.3 million in the last three months alone. API launched ads a few weeks ago to protect the industry’s tax breaks, even as Big Oil is making record profits off of higher gas prices. Like his favored candidate, Gerard is one of America’s 1 percent, receiving one of the largest salaries of any trade group executive at over $6.4 million.

Chevron contributed $500,000 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute gave $25,500 to the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, both of which ran vicious right-wing attack ads in the 2010 midterm elections:

The American Petroleum Institute, which advocates for the oil and gas industry, gave $25,500 to Americans for Prosperity, IRS disclosures show. Americans for Prosperity, based in Arlington, Virginia, spent more than $1.2 million in 2010 to help elect Republicans to Congress, according to FEC records.

The petroleum institute also gave $25,000 to the Alexandria, Virginia-based 60 Plus Association, which favors privatizing Social Security and spent more than $7 million in 2010 in support of Republicans, IRS and FEC records show.

Of course, Republicans picked up seats in both the House and Senate in 2010, when spending from these groups favored Republicans 10-to-1.

Groups like Chevron have seen billions in returns for their 2010 contributions. Chevron’s profits jumped 23.3 percent since 2010, and the company earned $3 million every hour last year. However, the company only paid an effective 19 percent income tax in 2011. Exxon, the most profitable oil company, paid a lowly 13 percent.

In 2012, undisclosed donations will play an even larger role, since interest group spending is up 1600 percent from the 2008 cycle.

A new series of oil and gas industry “issue ads” running in seven states claim “Americans oppose” Democratic efforts to eliminate subsidies for the petroleum companies. But a ThinkProgress Green analysis finds the industry claims do not add up.

The radio ads, run in seven key states by the American Petroleum Institute this week, say:

It’s another bad idea from Washington. In speech after speech, President Obama is calling for higher taxes on the energy producers who power America, to raise money to pay for more government spending. But Americans oppose President Obama’s new taxes. We know what those taxes will do. Independent analysts say Obama’s tax plan could actually raise gas prices, making families pay more and hurting our economy.

In a press release on the trade association’s website, API explains the group’s rationale for the claim that the public opposes the “new taxes” — really elimination of tax incentives for the industry — claiming:

“Opposition to higher energy taxes is rising among the public. A recent “What is America Thinking on Energy Issues” poll showed that 76 percent of voters think that higher energy taxes could equal higher gas prices.”

The release quotes the group’s president and CEO Jack Gerard arguing:

Raising taxes will not lower energy prices for American families and businesses—in fact, the Congressional Research Service says this plan could cause gasoline prices to go higher. Our new campaign in key states will explain that more domestic production is critical to putting downward pressure on gasoline prices—supply matters.

The poll, conducted by Harris Interactive for API, does not include the question of whether Americans support or oppose ending the industry’s tax credits. As Climate Progress previously reported, polling shows strong national support for the idea.

Rather, the API poll asked the 1009 participants whether they agreed with the statement “Increasing energy taxes could increase consumer costs on a wide variety of products and services, including higher gasoline prices.” The polling memo did indeed show 76 percent agreed with that statement. Given that the industry sets its own prices, of course they could raise gas prices to preserve profits if the tax breaks were eliminated.

But fascinatingly, the polling company then read a statement to back up the argument, referencing the Congressional Research study to which the API’s Gerard referred in his quote:

The Congressional Research Service, an agency within the Library of Congress that provides bipartisan analysis to Congress, conducted an in-depth study that concluded that the Administration’s efforts to increase taxes on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry may have the effect of decreasing exploration, development and production here in America, while increasing consumer prices and increasing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

After being read that, the voters were again asked whether they agreed with the statement “Increasing energy taxes could increase consumer costs on a wide variety of products and services, including higher gasoline prices.” This time, only 70 percent said yes. The argument actually disuaded voters.

Perhaps the more voters hear from API, the less they support the industry’s positions.

A spokeswoman for API did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the trade association for the oil and gas industry, has launched a new radio and print ad campaign in seven states opposing Democratic efforts to eliminate subsidies for the petroleum companies and then urge voters to call key home-state senators.

The Washington Post reported that API spokesman Reid Porter said the ad campaign was “based on public policy currently being debated before the U.S. Senate” and “not related to campaign activities.”

The ads are running in Missouri, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Maine and Nevada from March 24-27. Six of those states will see fiercely-contested Senate races this November. The seventh, North Carolina, will likely see a close Senate race in 2014. The 2012 races are:

– MA: Sen. Scott Brown (R) won a 2010 special election and is seeking a full term
– ME: Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) is retiring, leaving an open seat
– MO: Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) is seeking re-election
– NE: Sen. Dean Heller (R) is seeking a full term
– VA: Sen. Jim Webb (D) is retiring, leaving an open seat
– WV: Sen. Joe Manchin (D) won a 2010 special election and is seeking a full term

Some of the ads mention both of the state’s senators, but others mention only one senator.

In the four states that have an incumbent running for re-election — Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, and West Virginia — the API ads mention that senator alone. And the North Carolina ads mention only Sen. Kay Hagan (D), the incumbent up for re-election in two years. In the two states with an open-seat election — Maine and Virginia — the ads mention both senators.

Sen. Brown’s campaign conceded the ads have an effect on the Massachusetts senate campaign, in his favor. The Massachusetts Republican will make a donation to a charity of his opponent’s choosing, in accordance with an agreement between their two campaigns.

The oil lobby group American Petroleum Institute launched ads in Massachusetts late last week on behalf of Koch-funded candidate Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), as part of its $2 million national campaign to protect oil subsidies.

Unfortunately for Brown, the ads violate the “People’s Pledge” he made with Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren earlier this year, banning outside group spending in the race. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign manager Mindy Myers noted the oil-subsidy ads “are funded by big oil and clearly support Brown’s position”:

It has come to our attention that the American Petroleum Institute has been running radio and print ads to support Senator Scott Brown’s position on tax breaks for big oil companies. Given Senator Brown’s past vote in support of these tax breaks, and the fact that these ads are funded by big oil and clearly support Brown’s position on this issue, this is a violation of the People’s Pledge.

According to the agreement, when an ad runs the candidate who benefits must donate the sum to charity. This is already the second time Brown has cut a check because of outside groups supporting his campaign.

In addition to Massachusetts, API has run similar ads in six states to protect the industry’s billions in tax loopholes. In the ad, API falsely claims that raising taxes leads to higher prices at the pump, though a Congressional Research Service memo determines that eliminating tax breaks for big oil companies would have negligible impact.

The API ad ostensibly urged Brown to oppose a Senate bill repealing Big Oil’s tax breaks — a position he’s already taken. Brown already voted against repealing these subsidies last year.

The Warren-Brown deal may minimize dirty Super PAC tactics in their own race, but it doesn’t prevent outside group interests from dictating Brown’s voting record. Koch Industries has donated $15,250 to Brown’s campaign this cycle, and he’s taken in close to $200,000 from oil and gas during his career. Before he voted against the oil subsidy repeal last year, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Exxon contributed to Brown’s campaign.

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard wants you to know: “We get no subsidies in the oil and gas business.” Of course, the industry receives a total $40 billion in tax breaks over 10 years. Speaking today at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on gas prices, Gerard defended the political favoritism citing an out-of-context finding from a Congressional Research Service study.

Gerard claimed gas prices would increase as a result of ending big oil tax breaks. His testimony echoed API’s previous statements that Obama’s call to end oil subsidies is “discriminatory“:

It calls for “all-of-the-above” then threatens the companies that could lead an energy renaissance with $85 billion in discriminatory tax increases.

The likely report Gerard seized on is the same House Speaker John Boehner has used from the Congressional Research Institute finding “On what would likely be a small scale, the proposals also would make oil and natural gas more expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase foreign dependence.” The key point is the negligible impact, considering the $137 billion the big five oil companies made last year. Yet another CRS report, dated May 2011, debunked the oil industry’s defense of subsidies, finding gas prices won’t go up:

It is widely accepted that a proportional change in taxes on profit affects neither the firm’s incremental costs or revenues, and therefore does not change its its behavior with respect to output. Since output does not change, there is little reason to believe that the price of oil, or gasoline, consumers face will increase.

The oil industry is one of the most heavily subsidized industries, with “tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process,” the New York Times writes. The industry is also one of the most politically influential, spending over $146 million on lobbying in 2011 alone. API itself has lobbied with over $25 million since 2008 and spent $30,500 on House candidates last year.

It’s unsurprising Republicans in the same room as Gerard today — taking $5.6 million in career contributions from oil and gas — sat idly by while the oil lobby defended subsidies.

Gasoline companies — driven by oil speculation and profits — continue to charge more and more for their product every day. How is the industry spending the money it’s taking from customer’s wallets?

In recent weeks, they have flooded television programs with television ads promoting the causes of the industry. The American Petroleum Institute (API) calls itself “the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry.” With money from its more than 400 corporate members, the group has been running spots like “Vote 4 Energy,” trying to convert angry consumers into civic allies.

In the 30-second spot, a series of unidentified people claim that they vote and support key oil industry priorities.

I vote. I vote. I vote for American jobs. I vote. I vote for more domestic energy — energy from all sources, to get America working again. I vote. I vote. I vote for energy security that will come from developing our own energy resources. Like oil and natural gas. Right here. Right now. I vote. To re-energize America with American energy. Learn more at VoteforEnergy.org.

Watch the ad:

Other spots in the series take aim at “new energy taxes” and cheer oil imports from Canada.

As Greenpeace reported in December, the “voters” were fed lines by the media production company and the carefully scripted spots were far more astroturf than grassroots.

Companies like Chevron are also running ads on their own. It is running a series of similar feel-good sports highlighting the company’s support for small business and its work helping the economy of the oil-exporting nation of Angola.”

The ads of course, make no mention of the myriad environmental and safety risks of deregulated offshore drilling, hydrofracking, and tar sands pipelines.

But, in putting the industry on the side of voter participation, if nothing else Big Oil has created American jobs — for television ad-makers.