Royalties Collection: Ongoing Problems with Interior's Efforts to
Ensure A Fair Return for Taxpayers Require Attention (28-MAR-07, 
GAO-07-682T).							 
                                                                 
The Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service	 
(MMS) is charged with collecting and administering royalties paid
by companies developing fossil and renewable energy resources on 
federal lands and within federal waters. To promote development  
of oil and natural gas, fossil resources vital to meeting the	 
nation's energy needs, the federal government at times has	 
provided "royalty relief" waiving or reducing the royalties that 
companies must pay. In these cases, relief is typically 	 
applicable only if prices remain below certain threshold levels. 
Oil and gas royalties can be taken at MMS's discretion either "in
value" as cash or "in kind" as a share of the product itself.	 
Additionally, MMS also collects royalties on the development of  
geothermal energy resources--a renewable source of heat and	 
electricity--on federal lands. This statement provides (1) an	 
update of our work regarding the fiscal impacts of royalty relief
for leases issued under the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of	 
1995; (2) a description of our recent work on the administration 
of the royalties in kind program, as well as ongoing work on	 
related issues; and (3) information on the challenges to	 
collecting geothermal royalties identified in our recent work. To
address these issues we relied on recent GAO reports on oil, gas,
and geothermal royalty collection systems. We are also reviewing 
key MMS estimates and data.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-682T					        
    ACCNO:   A67392						        
  TITLE:     Royalties Collection: Ongoing Problems with Interior's   
Efforts to Ensure A Fair Return for Taxpayers Require Attention  
     DATE:   03/28/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Data integrity					 
	     Electric energy					 
	     Energy policy					 
	     Financial analysis 				 
	     Gas leases 					 
	     Geothermal energy					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Natural resources					 
	     Oil leases 					 
	     Prices and pricing 				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Renewable energy sources				 
	     Royalty payments					 
	     MMS Royalty-in-Kind Program			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-682T
   
                United States Government Accountability Office

Testimony

GAO

    Before the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery Expected at 11:00 a.m. EDT
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

ROYALTIES COLLECTION

 Ongoing Problems with Interior's Efforts to Ensure A Fair Return for Taxpayers
                               Require Attention

Statement of Mark Gaffigan, Acting Director
Natural Resources and
Environment

GAO-07-682T

ROYALTIES COLLECTION

Ongoing Problems with Interior's Efforts to Ensure a Fair Return for Taxpayers
Require Attention

  What GAO Found

The absence of price thresholds in oil and gas leases issued by MMS in
1998 and 1999 has already cost the government about $1 billion and the
agency has recently estimated that future foregone royalties would be $6.4
billion to $9.8 billion over the lives of the leases. Precise estimates of
the actual foregone royalties, however, are not possible at this time
because future projections are sensitive to price and production levels,
both of which are subject to change. MMS is currently negotiating with oil
and gas companies to apply price thresholds to future production from
these leases, with mixed results--only 6 of the 45 companies involved have
agreed to terms. Moreover, a pending legal challenge to Interior's
authority to include price thresholds on any leases issued under the Deep
Water Royalty Relief Act could, if successful, cost the government
billions more in refunded and foregone revenue.

In our most recent review of the royalty in kind (RIK) program, conducted
in 2004, we found that MMS was unable to determine whether the revenues
received from its sales of oil taken in kind were equivalent to receiving
royalties in value, largely because it had not developed systems to
rapidly and efficiently collect this information. We made recommendations
that the agency has implemented that have improved the administration of
the program as it existed at the time of our report. However, the
continued expansion of the program raises a new question about the
adequacy of the agency's overall management practices and internal
controls to meet the increasing demands placed on the RIK program.
Accordingly, we are undertaking follow-on reviews assessing, among other
things, the agency's ability to quantify and compare administrative costs
and revenues of the RIK and royalties in value programs and the extent to
which the revenues collected under the RIK program are equal to or greater
than what would have been received had they been taken in value.

In a 2006 report on geothermal royalties, we found that missing and
erroneous historical data, as well as insufficient data on electricity
sales, meant that MMS is unable to accurately determine whether it was
collecting royalties as directed by statute. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
included provisions that significantly changed how geothermal royalties
are calculated but also directed Interior to maintain the same level of
royalties over the next ten years that would have been collected prior to
the Act's passage. We found that making this determination requires
historical data on sales of electricity produced from geothermal resources
as well as accurate royalty data. However, MMS did not have sufficient
historical gross revenue data with which to establish a baseline for past
royalties paid as a percentage of electricity revenues. Further, about 40
percent of MMS's royalty data was either missing or erroneous for the
projects we reviewed. We recommended that MMS correct these deficiencies
and the agency agreed. We are continuing to monitor the agency's efforts.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss our recent work on the
administration of revenues collected from the production of fossil and
renewable energy resources on federal lands and within federal waters.
Companies that develop these resources do so under leases which generally
require the payment of royalties on the resources extracted and produced.
These leases are administered by the Minerals Management Service (MMS), an
agency within the Department of the Interior (Interior). These resources
include geothermal, coal, and, most notably, oil and natural gas
(hereafter oil and gas).

In particular, fossil energy resources from federal lands and waters are a
critical component of the nation's energy portfolio, supplying more than a
third of all the oil and nearly a quarter of all the natural gas produced
in the United States in fiscal year 2005. Oil and gas companies received
over $77 billion from the sale of oil and gas produced from federal lands
and waters in fiscal year 2006, and these companies paid the federal
government about $10 billion in royalties.

In order to promote oil and gas production, the federal government has at
times and in specific cases provided "royalty relief"--the waiver or
reduction of royalties that companies would otherwise be obligated to pay.
When the government grants royalty relief, it typically specifies the
amounts of oil and gas production that will be exempt from royalties and
may also specify that royalty relief is applicable only if oil and gas
prices remain below certain levels, known as "price thresholds." For
example, the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of
1995, also known as the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA), mandated
royalty relief for oil and gas leases issued in the deep waters of the
Gulf of Mexico from 1996 to 2000. These deep water regions are
particularly costly to explore and develop. However, as production from
these leases has grown, and as oil and gas prices have risen dramatically
in recent years, serious questions have been raised about the extent to
which royalty relief has been in the interest of taxpayers. These concerns
were brought into stark relief when it was learned that MMS issued leases
in 1998 and 1999 that failed to include the price thresholds above which
royalty relief would no longer be applicable, making large volumes of oil
and natural gas exempt from royalties and significantly affecting the
amount of royalty revenues collected by the federal government. Further
royalty relief is currently available under other legislation and
programs, raising the prospect that the federal government may be forgoing
additional royalty revenues. Recently, congressional committees,
Interior's Inspector
General, ^[71]1 public interest groups, and the press have questioned
whether our nation's oil and gas royalties are being properly managed and
whether the oil and gas industry is paying a fair share of revenue to the
public resource owners, especially in light of high oil and gas prices,
record industry profits, and the daunting current and long-range fiscal
challenges facing our nation. GAO has expressed similar concerns, and the
U.S. Comptroller General has highlighted royalty relief as an area needing
additional oversight by the 110th Congress. ^[72]2

The MMS is authorized by Congress to collect royalties "in value," as a
fraction of the revenues companies receive from sale of oil and gas
produced on federal leases, or "in kind," as a fraction of the oil and gas
that the MMS then sells to recover the government's share of oil and gas
revenue. With regard to oil, while MMS has long received relatively small
amounts of oil in kind for specific purposes, such as in a past program
that provided royalty oil to small refiners at subsidized prices, the bulk
of royalties have historically been collected in value. In recent years,
however, MMS has taken a growing proportion of oil royalties in kind. Much
of this oil was then exchanged for other oil that was put into the
nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, over 700 million barrels of publicly
held crude oil that is stored to ensure emergency supplies in the event of
a significant disruption in the normal oil supply. Under the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, MMS is charged with ensuring that the revenues it receives
when it sells oil taken in kind are at least as great as the revenues it
would have received had it taken the royalties in value. The recent
expansion of the royalties in kind (RIK) program has raised the obvious
question of whether or not this condition is being met.

While fossil energy resources are significant, the federal government also
manages royalties from renewable sources such as geothermal energy.
Geothermal energy is a unique renewable energy resource in that it can
provide a consistent and uninterrupted supply of heat and electricity.
Companies drill wells to bring the geothermal fluids and steam to the
surface, separate the steam from the fluids as their pressure drops, and
use the steam to spin the blades of a turbine that generates electricity.
The electricity is then sold to utilities in a manner similar to sales of
electricity generated by hydroelectric, coal-fired, and gas-fired power
plants, and the companies pay royalties based on the electricity sold.

^1Minerals Management Service's Compliance Review Process, Department of the
Interior Office of the Inspector General, Report No. C-IN-MMS-0006-2006
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2006).

^2GAO, Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress [73],
GAO-07-235R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006).

Due, in part, to increasing demand for electricity, interest is increasing
in developing geothermal energy resources as an alternative form of
generation. Because many areas that have the potential to produce
additional geothermal energy are located on federal lands, the federal
government will continue to be a major participant in the future
development of geothermal energy. MMS collects the federal geothermal
royalties and disburses to the state and local governments its share of
these royalties. In 2005, the most recent year for which data are
available, MMS collected $12.3 million in geothermal royalties, almost all
of which was derived from the production of electricity.

You asked us to provide information from our recent work on the
administration of federal royalty revenues at MMS. My testimony today

(1)
           updates our work regarding the fiscal impacts of royalty relief
           for leases issued under the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995;

(2)
           describes our recent work regarding the administration of the
           royalties in kind program, as well as ongoing work on this and
           related issues we have undertaken for congressional requesters;
           and (3) provides information on the challenges to collecting and
           managing geothermal royalties that we identified in recent work.

To address these issues, we relied on recent GAO reports related to MMS's
royalty collection systems for oil, gas, and geothermal resources. As part
of our ongoing work, we also reviewed the methodology and assumptions used
by MMS to produce their February 2007 estimate of foregone oil and gas
royalties. Our work follows the issuance of our report last year
explaining why oil and gas royalties have not risen at the same pace as
rising oil and gas prices. ^[74]3 Our work was conducted in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

GAO, Royalty Revenues: Total Revenues Have Not Increased at the Same Pace
as Rising Natural Gas Prices due to Decreasing Production Sold [75],
GAO-06-786R ( Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2006).

    In summary we found:

     o The absence of price thresholds in leases issued in 1998 and 1999 has
       already cost the government about $1 billion and MMS's most recent
       estimate indicates a range of future foregone royalties of between
       $6.4 billion and $9.8 billion over the lifetime of the leases.
       However, because there is considerable uncertainty about future oil
       and natural gas prices and production levels, actual foregone
       royalties could end up being higher or lower than MMS's estimates. MMS
       is currently negotiating with oil and gas companies to apply price
       thresholds to future production from the 1998 and 1999 leases. To
       date, the results of these negotiations have been mixed--only 6 of the
       45 companies involved have agreed to terms. Moreover, a pending legal
       challenge to Interior's authority to include price thresholds on any
       leases issued under the DWRRA could, if successful, cost the
       government billions more in refunded and foregone revenue.
     o In our most recent audit of the RIK program, conducted in 2004, we
       found that MMS had not collected the necessary information to
       determine whether or not the revenues received from its sales of
       royalty oil were equivalent to receiving royalties in value, largely
       because it had not developed information systems to rapidly and
       efficiently collect this information. We made recommendations to the
       Secretary of the Interior that the agency has implemented and that
       have improved the administration of the program as it existed at the
       time. However, the continued expansion of the program raises
       additional questions about the adequacy of the agency's overall
       management practices and internal controls to meet the increasing
       demands of the program. Accordingly, at the request of Congress, we
       are undertaking a follow-on review assessing, among other things, the
       agency's ability to quantify and compare administrative costs and
       revenues of the RIK and royalties in value programs and the extent to
       which the revenues collected under the RIK program are equal to or
       greater than what would have been received had they been taken in
       value.
     o In a 2006 report on geothermal royalties, we found that MMS had
       erroneous and missing historical geothermal royalty data and did not
       collect sufficient data from royalty payors to accurately asses
       whether MMS was collecting the amount of royalties required by
       statute. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included provisions that
       significantly changed how geothermal royalties are calculated but also
       instructed the Secretary of the Interior to seek to maintain the same
       aggregate level of royalties over the next ten years that would have
       been collected prior to the Act's passage. We found that in order to
       compare royalties collected under the provisions of the Act with what
       would have been collected under the old
system would require historical data on gross revenues from geothermal
electricity sales as well as accurate royalty data. However, we found that
MMS did not have sufficient historical gross revenue data with which to
establish a baseline for past royalties paid as a percentage of
electricity revenues. Further, about 40 percent of MMS's royalty data was
either missing or erroneous for the projects we reviewed. In our report we
recommended that the Secretary of the Interior direct MMS to correct these
deficiencies and the agency agreed with our findings and recommendations.
We are continuing to monitor the agency's efforts to address these
shortcomings.

                                   Background
											  
Interior oversees and manages the nation's publicly owned natural
resources, including parks, wildlife habitat, and crude oil and natural
gas resources on over 500 million acres onshore and in the waters of the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). In this capacity, Interior is authorized to
lease federal fossil and renewable energy resources and to collect the
royalties associated with their production. These substantial revenues are
disbursed to 38 States, 41 Indian Tribes, Interior's Office of Trust Funds
Management on behalf of some 30,000 individual Indian royalty owners, and
to U.S. Treasury accounts.

Royalties paid for fossil and renewable resources extracted from leased
lands represent the principal source of the $12.6 billion in revenues
managed by MMS--$10.7 billion, more than 85 percent of revenues received
in fiscal year 2006. ^[76]4 Of these, oil and natural gas leases are the
most significant component of royalties, composing on average nearly 90
percent of the royalties received over the past five years. For oil and
gas, production royalties are paid either in value or in kind. The OCS
Lands Act of 1953, as amended, and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as
amended, authorize the collection of production royalties either in value
or in kind for federal lands leased for development onshore and on the
OCS. Furthermore, according to MMS, the terms of virtually all federal oil
and gas leases provide for royalties to be paid in value or in kind at the
discretion of the lessor. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides
additional statutory requirements to support the operation and funding of
a program for managing federal oil and gas royalties in kind.

^4The remaining $1.9 billion  consist of other  revenues received from  rent
payments and bonuses paid by companies for successful bids on leases.

Additionally, MMS also collects revenue generated by exploration and
development of geothermal energy resources commonly used to generate
electricity. ^[77]5 Until recently, the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as
amended, directed MMS to disburse royalties collected from geothermal
energy development such that 50 percent of geothermal royalties be
retained by the federal government and the other 50 percent be disbursed
to the states in which the federal leases are located. ^[78]6 A provision
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 changed the distribution of the royalties
collected from geothermal resources. While 50 percent of federal
geothermal royalties must still be disbursed to the states in which the
federal leases are located, an additional 25 percent must be disbursed to
the counties in which the leases are located, leaving only 25 percent to
the federal government.

Billions of Dollars of Royalty Revenue Will be Foregone Because of
Problems Associated with Royalty Relief

As Assistant Secretary Allred of Interior recently testified before the
Congress, the absence of price thresholds in leases issued in 1998 and
1999 has already cost the government almost $1 billion and MMS has
estimated a range of potential future foregone revenue for these leases of
between $6.4 billion and $9.8 billion. MMS calculated these estimates
under a range of assumptions about oil and natural gas prices and future
production levels. We reviewed MMS's assumptions and methodology for
estimating the potential foregone revenue from 1998 and 1999 leases and
found them to be reasonable. However, because there is considerable
uncertainty about future oil and natural gas prices and production levels,
actual foregone royalties could end up being higher or lower than MMS's
estimates.

MMS is currently negotiating with oil and gas companies to apply price
thresholds to future production from the 1998 and 1999 leases. If
successful, this approach would partially undo the omission of price
thresholds for future production, thereby implementing the royalty relief
as though price thresholds had been included in the leases. However, the
results of the negotiation have been mixed so far--as of late February
2007, only 6 of 45 companies have agreed to terms, and a current legal
challenge to Interior's authority to set price thresholds on any DWRRA
leases may further deter or complicate a negotiated settlement.

^5Geothermal energy is literally the heat of the earth. This heat is
abnormally high where hot and molten rocks exist at shallow depths below
the earth's surface. Water, brines, and steam circulating within these hot
rocks are collectively referred to as geothermal resources.

^630 U.S.C. S 191(a). The State of Alaska is an exception to this provision,
receiving 90 percent.

In addition to forgone royalty revenues from leases issued in 1998 and
1999, royalty revenues on leases issued under DWRRA in 1996, 1997, and
2000 are also threatened pending the outcome of a legal challenge
regarding price thresholds. Specifically, Kerr-McGee filed suit against
the Department of the Interior in early 2006, challenging its authority to
place price thresholds on any of the leases issued under the DWRRA. In
effect, this suit seeks to remove price thresholds from the leases in
question. In June 2006, Kerr-McGee agreed to enter into mediation with
Interior in an attempt to resolve the issue; however, the mediation was
unsuccessful and litigation has resumed. As of March 2007, the leases in
question have generated approximately $1 billion in royalties. If the
government loses this legal challenge, it may be required to refund these
royalties--perhaps with interest penalties--and to forego any future
royalties on these leases, and perhaps any lease issued during 1996, 1997,
and 2000. As a result, the government could stand to lose billions of
additional dollars.

The RIK Program Has Been Unable to Demonstrate Its Effectiveness Due to
Data Limitations

We reviewed the RIK pilot program for this committee in two separate
reports in 2003 and 2004 and found that MMS did not collect the necessary
information to effectively monitor and evaluate the program. ^[79]7 This
information includes the administrative costs of the RIK program and the
revenue impacts of all sales. We found that MMS lacked this information
largely because it had not developed information systems to rapidly and
efficiently collect this information.

We made several recommendations in our 2003 and 2004 reports to address
the shortcomings we identified. Specifically, to further the development
of management controls for MMS's RIK program, we recommended that the
Secretary of the Interior instruct the appropriate managers within MMS to
identify and acquire key information needed to monitor and evaluate
performance prior to expanding the RIK program. We specified that such
information should include the revenue impacts of all RIK sales,
administrative costs of the RIK program, and expected savings in auditing
revenues. We also recommended that MMS clarify the
RIK program's strategic objectives to explicitly state that the goals of
RIK include obtaining fair market value and collecting at least as much
revenue as MMS would have collected in cash royalty payments. MMS agreed
with both recommendations and has taken several steps to address these
shortcomings.

^7GAO, Mineral Revenues: A More Systematic Evaluation of the
Royalty-in-Kind Pilots is Needed [80], GAO-03-296 (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
9, 2003) and GAO, Mineral Revenues: Cost and Revenue Information Needed to
Compare Different Approaches for Collecting Federal Oil and Gas Royalties
[81], GAO-04-448 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004).

We acknowledge the agency's efforts and, within the context of the
program's scope at the time of our report, consider our recommendations
implemented by the agency. However, the expansion of use of RIK since our
last review raises an additional concern. The RIK program has actively
expanded the scope of its operations as MMS has increasingly opted to take
royalties in kind rather than in cash. As MMS reported in its September
2006 Report to Congress, today's RIK operation manages a significant
portfolio of the nation's oil and gas royalty assets collected primarily
from federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico. This portfolio has expanded
more than three-fold from 1999 to present--some 82 million barrels of oil
equivalent were exchanged in kind in fiscal year 2005--and is expected to
continue to grow for the foreseeable future. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
permanently established an RIK operation with administrative and business
costs to be paid from royalty revenues generated by RIK sales, effectively
transitioning the program from pilot status to a steady-state business
operation and potentially enabling a further expansion of the RIK program.
The Act restricts the use of RIK to those situations where the benefit is
determined to equal or exceed the benefit from royalties in value prior to
the sale. However, the larger scale of the RIK program at present makes it
unclear that MMS can effectively and accurately make this determination
going forward.

Noting this issue, we are undertaking work for the Congress. Specifically,
we have several ongoing reviews assessing, among other things, MMS's
ability to quantify and compare administrative costs and revenues of the
RIK and royalties in value programs; the effectiveness of the systems used
to collect, account for, and disburse royalties; and the accuracy of
royalty revenue collection, including evaluating whether the value of RIK
payments equal or exceed the value of royalties that would have been
received in value for oil and gas as required by statute.

MMS Does Not Collect the Data Necessary to Assess Whether Geothermal
Royalties Remain Constant as Required by Law

In a 2006 report on geothermal royalties, we found that MMS had erroneous
and missing historical geothermal electricity revenue data and did not
collect sufficient data from royalty payors to accurately asses whether
MMS was collecting the amount of royalties required by statute. ^[82]8
Specifically, about 40 percent of the royalty revenue data for royalty
payors was either missing or erroneous in the projects we reviewed. In
addition, MMS did not have sufficient historical gross revenue data for
geothermal electricity sales.

MMS is charged with collecting and distributing royalties collected from
the development of geothermal resources used to generate electricity. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 included provisions that significantly changed
how geothermal royalties are calculated but also instructed the Secretary
of the Interior to seek to maintain the same level of royalties over the
next ten years that would have been collected prior to the Act's passage.
We found that to meet the statutory requirements, MMS will need to
calculate the percentage of gross sales revenues that lessees will pay in
future royalties from electricity sales and compare this to what lessees
would have paid prior to the Act. In order to compare royalties collected
under the provisions of the Act with what would have been collected under
the old system would require historical data on gross revenues from
geothermal electricity sales as well as accurate royalty data on those
sales.

As a result of the insufficient gross revenue data and missing or
erroneous royalty revenue data, MMS is unable to determine if it is
collecting the amount of royalties on geothermal electricity production as
required in statute. In our report we recommended that the Secretary of
the Interior direct MMS to correct these deficiencies and the agency
agreed with our findings and recommendations. We will continue to monitor
the agency's efforts to address these shortcomings.

Conclusions

As seen by all the attention royalties management has received in the
Congress and the media, Interior's performance in managing this effort is
a cause for concern. Billions of dollars have been lost already and
potentially billions more are at risk. In a time of dire long-term
national fiscal challenges it is urgent that this problem be fixed and the
confidence of the American public that the sale of its national resources
is generating
a fair return be restored. Our work on this issue is continuing on
multiple levels, including comparing the value of royalties taken in kind
to the value of royalties taken as cash, reviewing the diligence of
resource development, and evaluating the accuracy of the agency's cost,
revenue, and production data.

^8GAO, Renewable Energy: Increased Geothermal Development Will Depend on
Overcoming Many Challenges, [83]GAO-06-629 ( Washington, D.C.: May 24,
2006), 34-38.

We look forward to this continued work, and to helping this committee and
the Congress as a whole exercise oversight of this important issue. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or other members of the Committee may
have at this time.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

For further information about this testimony, please contact me, Mark
Gaffigan, at 202-512-3841 or [email protected]. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this statement. Contributors to this testimony include Frank
Rusco, Assistant Director; Robert Baney; Ron Belak; Philip Farah; Doreen
Feldman; Glenn Fischer; Dan Haas; Chase Huntley; Dawn Shorey; Barbara
Timmerman; Maria Vargas; and Jacqueline Wade.

Related GAO Products

Oil and Gas Royalties: Royalty Relief Will Likely Cost the Government
Billions, but the Final Costs Have Yet to Be Determined, [84]GAO-07-369T
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18, 2007).

Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress, [85]GAO-07-235R
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006).

Department of Interior: Royalty-in-Kind Oil and Gas Preferences, B-307767
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2006).

Royalty Revenues: Total Revenues Have Not Increased at the Same Pace as
Rising Natural Gas Prices due to Decreasing Production Sold,
[86]GAO-06-786BR (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2006).

Renewable Energy: Increased Geothermal Development Will Depend on
Overcoming Many Challenges, [87]GAO-06-629 ( Washington, D.C.: May 24,
2006).

Mineral Revenues: Cost and Revenue Information Needed to Compare Different
Approaches for Collecting Federal Oil and Gas Royalties, [88]GAO-04-448 (
Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004).

Mineral Revenues: A More Systematic Evaluation of the Royalty-in-Kind
Pilots is Needed, [89]GAO-03-296 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 9, 2003).

  (360820)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                             Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400  U.S.
Government Accountability Office,  441 G  Street NW,  Room 7125  Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs

U.S.  Government  Accountability  Office,  441  G  Street  NW,  Room  7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

  PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER

References

Visible links
  73. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-235R
  75. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-786R
  80. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-296
  81. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-448
  83. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-629
  84. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-369T
  85. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-235R
  86. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-786BR
  87. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-629
  88. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-448
  89. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-296
*** End of document. ***