It is the end of March, and the global economic crisis seems to worsen day by day. Massive bail-outs are stalling (that may, or may not, be a good thing), jobs continue to be shed, and politicians everywhere continue to underestimate the crisis and over promise on solutions. There simply is no realistic plan afoot in the political community to address the faltering global economy. Blame it on muddle-head politicos who can’t get their face out of the feed trough long enough to take a serious look around.

Trillions in economic recovery handouts? Why not? Who will pay it back? Not my problem. Blame it on the oil and gas industry and pass legislation to put them out of business? Sounds good. How about tying new energy policy to some really fuzzy green issues and uneconomic renewable energy? That’s a good one. Can I attach a subsidy for garbage collectors in my district to the energy bill? Sure.

How else could you explain this one? I have written about the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) before. Those of you who read this column know that I believe it is a splendid arrangement between government, a non-profit organization (RPSEA), and industry to fund R&D for ultra-deepwater, unconventional resources, and small operators. Trouble is, some in Washington did not see it that way. Specifically, the current budget request put forward by the Obama administration sought to kill RPSEA. Fortunately, Congressman Ralph Hall, a Republican from Texas, came to the rescue.

In a recent hearing in the House of Representatives Science Committee, Hall reviewed the achievements of RPSEA. He pointed out that the program is paid for by oil and gas royalties, not by taxes on citizens. He also noted that the program will pay for itself due to additional royalties on increased oil and gas production on federal lands enabled by the technologies that RPSEA funds. Additionally, he pointed out that the program would decrease reliance on imported oil and gas, a stated objective of the new administration.

When Hall’s turn came to question Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, he asked if programs such as environmental remediation for oil and gas projects and enhanced recovery that might be funded by RPSEA were appropriate uses of Department of Energy funds. The secretary agreed, noting particularly the importance of enhanced oil recovery research related to CO2 flooding in depleted fields.

The conversation took a 180° turn when Hall asked the secretary if the 92 yet to be funded peer-reviewed proposals currently before RPSEA might be worthy of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding as they would increase jobs, develop cleaner energy (gas), and decrease dependence on imports. The secretary replied that he was open to consideration of the idea.

Finally, Hall asked the secretary if he would review the program prior to considering any other efforts to curtail it. The secretary said he would, noting that the program was labeled simply the “Ultra-deep program” in the budget and he had no idea that the program extended to onshore and unconventional resources. The secretary replied that he was committed to working with Hall on his request.

And there you have it. An administration committed to cleaner energy, more jobs and less dependence on imported oil and gas proposing to kill a program that will deliver all three. Why? Simply because it was mislabeled and most in the administration had not taken the time to determine what it really did.

Comments