Oil, Gas Take Hits on Proposed Budget

On Feb. 1 President Obama launched the federal appropriations season with the release of the fiscal year 2011 budget, outlining his priorities for the coming federal fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2010 to Sept. 30, 2011).

The budget hit the headlines with eye-popping deficit projections at 11 percent of GDP in FY2011. And more dramatically, wrote the New York Times, “By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years,” and turn higher at the end of the decade.

To prevent a larger deficit this year and in its projections for the decade, the president proposed numerous measures to raise additional revenue and trim government spending. Oil and natural gas activities were targets on both sides of the federal income statement.


On the revenue side, the president has proposed to repeal a series of oil and natural gas tax “preferences.” This is essentially the same proposal the president made last year, but which Congress did not adopt. The Office of Management and Budget estimated that eliminating these tax measures would net $36.5 billion over 10 years.

The measures include repealing for oil and natural gas companies the expensing of intangible drilling costs, percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells, the exception of passive loss limits for working interests on oil and natural gas wells, a domestic manufacturing tax deduction available to all other industries and extending the amortization of geological and geophysical expenses for independents to seven years.

It also repeals several other provisions: the enhanced oil recovery and marginal well credits, and a deduction for tertiary injectants.

If implemented, these measures would severely disrupt the petroleum industry, both majors and independent oil and natural gas producers. AAPG’s view on taxes is articulated in its statement on tax reform:

“ … AAPG supports [tax] policies which serve to encourage petroleum exploration and production …”

The president’s proposals certainly do not meet this standard, and run counter to a sound national energy policy.


Turning to the expense side of the federal income statement, the president’s budget proposed $200 billion in spending cuts to discretionary programs. These cuts were spread across federal agencies.

At the Department of Energy (DOE) the proposed cuts included the oil and natural gas research and development (R&D) programs. In doing so, President Obama followed in the footsteps of President Bush, who also repeatedly “zeroed out” these programs.

The petroleum-oil technologies R&D program was unfunded in FY2010. Instead of restoring funding for this program, as it had in previous years, Congress reprogrammed $20 million for a new unconventional fossil energy technologies program.

The administration is not seeking FY2011 funding for either of these programs.

The natural gas technologies R&D program also was eliminated for FY2011. Funding in FY2010 was $17.8 million. Most of this was dedicated to methane hydrates research, which will shift to DOE’s Office of Science.

Carbon sequestration research at DOE focuses on carbon capture technologies and geologic storage. The FY2011 funding request is down about 7 percent to $143 million. The regional sequestration partnerships continue their Phase III projects, with nine injection sites looking to inject at least one million tons of carbon dioxide over three years.

The DOE geothermal program continues to see increased funding requests. The FY2011 budget request is $55 million, an increase of 25 percent. The focus of this program is research, development and deployment of technologies to realize the potential of enhanced or engineered geothermal systems to contribute significantly to base load power generation in the United States. The program will continue its efforts in deploying a public geothermal database, international cooperation, low-temperature geothermal systems research – including produced water from oil and natural gas wells – and the challenges of induced seismicity and water usage.

  • Shifting to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), its budget proposal included a 9 percent increase for the Energy Resources program, to $30.8 million. This increase is to provide the scientific support the Department of Interior needs to foster wind development on public lands.
  • The Minerals Resources program faces a 2.5 percent decrease in funding to $52.5 million due to some reprogramming of funds. But the administration deserves credit for recognizing the value of the minerals program. It had been under continuous threat during the previous administration.
  • The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping program budget request is up a fraction at $28.3 million, and the USGS data preservation program is expected to also remain flat at $1 million.

There were no surprises in the president’s budget, at least for the programs we track. DOE oil and natural gas programs are perennially under pressure, while carbon sequestration and geothermal present real opportunities for applied geoscience researchers. At USGS chronic underfunding hampers the data preservation program.


The proposed tax changes have caused great consternation among AAPG members, because of their destructive potential if implemented. It is up to us to explain to our elected officials, friends and neighbors why these tax proposals are bad public policy and why the federal government should be involved in oil and natural gas R&D.

Now is not the time for panic. Now is the time for AAPG members to get personally engaged.

Comments (0)

 

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - David Curtiss

David Curtiss served as the Director of AAPG’s Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, D.C. from 2008-11.

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Creties Jenkins

Creties Jenkins is a past president of the EMD.

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Peter MacKenzie

 Peter MacKenzie is vice chair of the Governance Board. 

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Dan Smith

Dan Smith is chair of the Governance Board.

Policy Watch

Policy Watch is a monthly column of the EXPLORER written by the director of AAPG's  Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, D.C. *The first article appeared in February 2006 under the name "Washington Watch" and the column name was changed to "Policy Watch" in January 2013 to broaden the subject matter to a more global view.

View column archives

See Also: Book

See Also: Bulletin Article

Understanding the distribution and geometry of reservoir geobodies is crucial for net-to-gross estimates and to model subsurface flow. This article focuses on the process of dolomitization and resulting geometry of diagenetic geobodies in an outcrop of Jurassic host rocks from northern Oman. Field and petrographic data show that a first phase of stratabound dolomite is crosscut by a second phase of fault-related dolomite. The stratabound dolomite geobodies are laterally continuous for at least several hundreds of meters (sim1000 ft) and probably regionally and are one-half meter (1.6 ft) thick. Based on petrography and geochemistry, a process of seepage reflux of mesosaline or hypersaline fluids during the early stages of burial diagenesis is proposed for the formation of the stratabound dolomite. In contrast, the fault-related dolomite geobodies are trending along a fault that can be followed for at least 100 m (328 ft) and vary in width from a few tens of centimeters to as much as 10 m (sim1–33 ft). Petrography, geochemistry, and high homogenization temperature of fluid inclusions all point to the formation of the dolomite along a normal fault under deep burial conditions during the Middle to Late Cretaceous. The high 87Sr/86Sr ratio in the dolomite and the high salinity measured in fluid inclusions indicate that the dolomitizing fluids are deep basinal brines that interacted with crystalline basement. The dolomitization styles have an impact on the dimension, texture, and geochemistry of the different dolomite geobodies, and a modified classification scheme (compared to the one from Jung and Aigner, 2012) is proposed to incorporate diagenetic geobodies in future reservoir modeling.
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/linking-process-dimension-texture-and-geochemistry.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3772 Bulletin Article

See Also: CD DVD

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 5592 CD-DVD

See Also: DL Abstract

The Gulf of Mexico (GOM) is the 9th largest body of water on earth, covering an area of approximately 1.6 million km2 with water depths reaching 4,400 m (14,300’). The basin formed as a result of crustal extension during the early Mesozoic breakup of Pangaea. Rifting occurred from the Late Triassic to early Middle Jurassic. Continued extension through the Middle Jurassic combined with counter-clockwise rotation of crustal blocks away from North America produced highly extended continental crust in the subsiding basin center. Subsidence eventually allowed oceanic water to enter from the west leading to thick, widespread, evaporite deposition. Seafloor spreading initiated in the Late Jurassic eventually splitting the evaporite deposits into northern (USA) and southern (Mexican) basins. Recent work suggests that this may have been accomplished by asymmetric extension, crustal delamination, and exposure of the lower crust or upper mantle rather than true sea floor spreading (or it could be some combination of the two). By 135 Ma almost all extension had ceased and the basic configuration of the GOM basin seen today was established. The Laramide Orogeny was the last major tectonic event impacting the GOM. It caused uplift and erosion for the NW margin from the Late Cretaceous to early Eocene.

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3078 DL Abstract

See Also: Short Course

This course is designed to enhance interpretation skill sets with regard to geologic interpretation of seismic data. The overall objective is to present methods for reducing risk with regard to prediction of lithology, reservoir compartmentalization and stratigraphic trapping potential in exploration and production.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/ace2015-sc15-seismic-geomorphology-hero1.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 14616 Short Course