Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, there isn't. There is no requirement whatsoever that the US sell or lease drilling rights on federal land.
Here we have a clear example of someone arriving at the wrong answer because he/she asked the wrong question in the first place.
Does the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (as amended; hereinafter "MLA") require the Secretary of the Interior to grant oil and gas leases covering federal lands? No, although it clearly authorizes him/her to do so. However, every Interior Secretary in the last 100 years has considered it an obligation to continue the program of leasing public lands for mineral exploration for a number of reasons:
1) The demand for lease acreage on the part of mineral lessees has always existed, and will continue to do so. The lease bonuses and royalties paid on leases issued by the federal government tend to benefit the U.S. taxpayer, and it would be pretty stupid for the Department of the Interior ("DOI") to turn down what is essentially free money, especially since DOI has no means of monetizing these resources themselves. Common sense REQUIRES DOI to offer these lands for lease, to the extent they have not been withdrawn from the leasing program.
2) Under the MLA, the states where these federal lands are located will participate in royalties paid on production from federal lands. Each and every state so affected has made it clear to DOI that their taxpayers have a vested financial interest in the continued viability of the federal leasing program, because federally owned acreage, being off the local tax rolls, is financially fallow for state and local tax purposes otherwise. The taxpayers of the western states where the federal government owns much of the land within their respective state borders are, through their elected representatives, REQUIRING DOI to continue the leasing program and insure its continuing viability, so that federal acreage can at least pull part of its financial weight in those states.
3) As we are all well aware, the U.S. imports a considerable percentage of the oil it consumes. The oil market in the U.S. can consume every barrel made available to it, and then some. The American gasoline consumer, we must agree, gets a tad cranky when gas prices rise. Oil and gas production from federal lands add to available supply, and the additional supply serves to limit retail price increases. Conclude, therefore, that the American petroleum consumer DEMANDS AND REQUIRES that DOI continue the leasing program, and expand it where it is feasible to do so.
4) The MLA of 1920 superseded the General Mining Act of 1872, under the provisions of which mining claimants, after fulfilling various requirements, could apply for and receive patents to the federal acreage. Prior to the MLA, mining claims on the most promising prospects in the West were being filed and perfected so quickly that Congress was compelled to act, lest there be no viable prospects left for the U.S. government itself. The MLA ended the mineral land rush and stipulated that henceforth, the federal government would own and manage the remaining acreage in its inventory, leasing it for mineral exploration when the Secretary of the DOI deemed it in the national interest to do so. In other words, experience and simple prudence REQUIRED that Congress create, through the MLA, a federal leasing program to replace the system promulgated by the General Mining Act of 1872, which threatened to leave the Western mineral cupboard bare.
Thus, it becomes patently obvious that the question "Is the Secretary of DOI required to issue oil and gas leases on federal lands?" is the wrong question altogether; hence, no answer to that question is of any possible use in an intelligent discussion of the subject.
The correct question, of course, is: "Does the totality of economic conditions and legal circumstances require the DOI to issue leases on federal lands, as it has since 1920?" And the answer to that question is an unqualified and incontrovertible "YES!"
Remember...if you want to arrive at the correct answer, you must first ask the right question.
Norway's pension fund now owns and average of 1.3% of all companies in the world. Norway's pension system is now so ludicrously wealthy that it'd equate to over $190,000 per person in the country. And here I thought countries with more socialized forms of health care, education, and taxation systems were doomed to utter failure?
You're looking at it all wrong. If there had been some proper Republicans in government, that money would have made for , oh, at least 100 multi-billionaires. Just think of how that sort of wealth concentration would have tinkled down on the remaining 5.2 million Norwegians. Now they have to make do with a boring "pension fund", when they could have admired the yachts and palaces of the wealthy on their way to and from work.
Here we have a clear example of someone arriving at the wrong answer because he/she asked the wrong question in the first place.
Does the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (as amended; hereinafter "MLA") require the Secretary of the Interior to grant oil and gas leases covering federal lands? No, although it clearly authorizes him/her to do so. However, every Interior Secretary in the last 100 years has considered it an obligation to continue the program of leasing public lands for mineral exploration for a number of reasons:
1) The demand for lease acreage on the part of mineral lessees has always existed, and will continue to do so. The lease bonuses and royalties paid on leases issued by the federal government tend to benefit the U.S. taxpayer, and it would be pretty stupid for the Department of the Interior ("DOI") to turn down what is essentially free money, especially since DOI has no means of monetizing these resources themselves. Common sense REQUIRES DOI to offer these lands for lease, to the extent they have not been withdrawn from the leasing program.
2) Under the MLA, the states where these federal lands are located will participate in royalties paid on production from federal lands. Each and every state so affected has made it clear to DOI that their taxpayers have a vested financial interest in the continued viability of the federal leasing program, because federally owned acreage, being off the local tax rolls, is financially fallow for state and local tax purposes otherwise. The taxpayers of the western states where the federal government owns much of the land within their respective state borders are, through their elected representatives, REQUIRING DOI to continue the leasing program and insure its continuing viability, so that federal acreage can at least pull part of its financial weight in those states.
3) As we are all well aware, the U.S. imports a considerable percentage of the oil it consumes. The oil market in the U.S. can consume every barrel made available to it, and then some. The American gasoline consumer, we must agree, gets a tad cranky when gas prices rise. Oil and gas production from federal lands add to available supply, and the additional supply serves to limit retail price increases. Conclude, therefore, that the American petroleum consumer DEMANDS AND REQUIRES that DOI continue the leasing program, and expand it where it is feasible to do so.
4) The MLA of 1920 superseded the General Mining Act of 1872, under the provisions of which mining claimants, after fulfilling various requirements, could apply for and receive patents to the federal acreage. Prior to the MLA, mining claims on the most promising prospects in the West were being filed and perfected so quickly that Congress was compelled to act, lest there be no viable prospects left for the U.S. government itself. The MLA ended the mineral land rush and stipulated that henceforth, the federal government would own and manage the remaining acreage in its inventory, leasing it for mineral exploration when the Secretary of the DOI deemed it in the national interest to do so. In other words, experience and simple prudence REQUIRED that Congress create, through the MLA, a federal leasing program to replace the system promulgated by the General Mining Act of 1872, which threatened to leave the Western mineral cupboard bare.
Thus, it becomes patently obvious that the question "Is the Secretary of DOI required to issue oil and gas leases on federal lands?" is the wrong question altogether; hence, no answer to that question is of any possible use in an intelligent discussion of the subject.
The correct question, of course, is: "Does the totality of economic conditions and legal circumstances require the DOI to issue leases on federal lands, as it has since 1920?" And the answer to that question is an unqualified and incontrovertible "YES!"
Remember...if you want to arrive at the correct answer, you must first ask the right question.[b]
No, it doesn't. Regardless of how you try to frame it, there is no legal requirement whatsoever for the fed gov to sell or lease drilling rights on federal lands. And, in fact, they refuse to do so quite frequently.
Universities do much more than basic research. Much of it is funded by private enterprise. You didn't know that, but that's hardly surprising.
Lol. You can change my words as much as you want, but it is not helping you. The initial high risk stages of any medical research are done mostly under NIH funding. The fact that private enterprise sponsors many things at much later stage of development has nothing to do with what I said. Got it?
Lol. You can change my words as much as you want, but it is not helping you. The initial high risk stages of any medical research are done mostly under NIH funding. The fact that private enterprise sponsors many things at much later stage of development has nothing to do with what I said. Got it?
No. You're incorrect. NIH funding is only a very small part of total spending on medical research, and grants are limited.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
