Top court rejects U.S. govt's oil royalty appeal

[Joanne98]

Source: Reuters


WASHINGTON, Oct 5 (Reuters) - The Supreme Court rejected on Monday an Interior Department appeal of a ruling that the government says will likely cost it at least $19 billion in lost oil royalties from energy companies.

The justices declined to review a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that Anadarko Petroleum Corp (APC.N) did not have to pay about $350 million in royalties for drilling on federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico issued between 1996 and 2000.

The decision in Anadarko's favor could lead other energy companies to forego paying royalties and cost the United States at least $19 billion in foregone or refunded royalties, the Justice Department said in its appeal on behalf of the Interior Department.

Justice Department attorneys argued that the appeals court incorrectly interpreted the royalty relief law and said the amount of money at stake makes the case worthy of Supreme Court review.

"Whatever the precise amount of forgone future royalties proves to be, the total cost will be huge and it will have a direct adverse affect on the Treasury," Solicitor General Elena Kagan said in the appeal, adding that the companies would get "unjustified windfalls."

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal without comment


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSN0537765920091005

---

Chalk one up for the oil companies!

I think everybody knows that the Roberts/Alito secret plan is to turn the US into a corporate slave state. I sure hope some Democrats in Congress are going to fight this with bills of their own.

[WriteDown]

1. Not sure about that...

From the article:

"Eight different federal judges and four federal courts reviewed and interpreted the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, and every one concluded that we acted in accordance with the law," Christiansen added."

This sounds like it must have been a pretty clear cut case.

[imdjh]

4. Congress says "Who me?"

It's really hard to imagine that 400 lawyers keep drawing up bills with gaping loopholes in them. This looks like it was a giveaway, written in such a way that the oil companies could get free oil, Congress could say "whoops", and the USSC could say, "Meh, youze fucked up."

[WriteDown]

5. Sounds about right....

but I wouldn't include the anti-Italian youze in there :).

[imdjh]

6. fixed :0)

[No Elephants]

10. Anti-Italian? Good Lord. Bigoted much?

Yoouze and yiz are regional and perhaps time specific, not ethnic.

[WriteDown]

12. Generally associated with mafia-types...

Much like the Sopranos is a stereotypical depiction of an Italian family.

Its amazing how acceptable it is to stereotype Italians. Watch for it on television.

[Joanne98]

8. Then they need to write another bill!

[Thothmes]

11. Congress will eventually get around to rewriting the bill

I guess. Probably sometime shortly after the leased oil fields have run dry. Since they cannot collect the royalties expost facto, the tax payers will get screwed as always. JMO.

[Pirate Smile]

2. The Roberts RW court is going to so suck. Even O'Connor is now complaining that

they are overturning her rulings - the ones where she and the liberal wing decided. If she could have just held out until 2009 everything would be so much better.

[imdjh]

3. Seems simple to me. Have EPA fine them an equivalent amount.

It's hard to imagine that any given oil platform can't be dinged out of existence on close scrutiny.

[Beavker]

7. I think to show those greedy bastards, we should just keep on

subsidizing their massive whoring profits, that we the American People are appearantly not going to see any returns on. Cut them off you morons! Of course, most Joe the Plumbers out there probably are for it. It's better for the country if I get shafted and fucked over by a large Corporation. Reagan said so.

[tomm2thumbs]

9. if they are going to reject a case, I would like to know the vote which led to it (for/against)

transparency would be nice, given that this is OUR Supreme Court and these basically are rulings on cases whether you think so or not. To NOT rule on a case IS a 'ruling' on a case by result and we should know who decided it was not worthy of review.

on a different note:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied former Qwest Communications International Inc. Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio's appeal of his insider-trading conviction. Mr. Nacchio, a onetime high-profile telecommunications executive, was convicted in 2007 for selling $52 million worth of stock while he knew his company was in financial distress. Without comment, the court left in place a lower-court ruling that upheld Mr. Nacchio's conviction on 19 counts of insider trading.