Railroad Commissioner: Hear me out, President Biden. Don’t write off oil and gas.

[Elderberry]

Houston Chronicle by Christi Craddick Jan. 22, 2021

As President Joe Biden takes office, White House staff change out photographs in hallways, newly appointed Cabinet members familiarize themselves with briefing materials, and new stationary memorializing the arrival of the 46th president of the United States is printed. Change is everywhere in Washington.

In stark contrast, Americans across nation are plagued with the same challenges that they faced yesterday. A global pandemic that has claimed over 402,000 American lives continues to wreak havoc with no end in sight. In its wreckage, families struggle to make ends meet in an economy that flounders under the weight of international and domestic factors including political turmoil, foreign price wars and supply chain deficiencies. Unemployment rates have stagnated at a staggering 6.7 percent.

While the name might be confusing, the Railroad Commission of Texas regulates the oil and gas industry in the single largest oil producing state in our nation. Alongside surface mining, pipeline safety and alternative fuels, this agency seeks to responsibly produce our state’s abundant resources for the benefit of all Texans with sensible and practical regulation. As chairman of the Railroad Commission of Texas, I am proud of the significant economic impact this industry provides to our state and the nation. Producing over 41 percent of the nation’s oil, Texas energy producers leave a massive footprint on our economy. Last year, according to the Texas Oil and Gas Association, the industry paid $13.9 billion in state and local taxes and state royalty payments. Over 400,000 Texans were directly employed by oil and natural gas companies last year, with average incomes that more than double the national average. Indirectly, each oil and natural gas job creates an additional 2.4 jobs in Texas. All in, the oil and natural gas industry was responsible for employing nearly 1 million Texans last year alone. These companies help provide some of the most affordable energy prices to families across the state at 8.6 cents/kWh compared to the national average of 10.54 cents/kWh. Tax revenues and refined products keep our roads paved, teachers employed and hospitals supplied.

More: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Railroad-Commissioner-Hear-me-out-President-15890298.php

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Is there a law preventing the State of Texas from keeping its own oil and gas within the state?

Seems this is the way to begin the slow throttling of the state by the feds.

The feds will escalate this throttle by eventually controlling the ability of our refineries to export product overseas and to ship product by pipelines interstate without onerous restrictions.

I foresee the feds ordering Texas to keep its wells flowing regardless of the state's sovereignty to decide itself.

Time we took the offensive.

[catfish1957]

Is there a law preventing the State of Texas from keeping its own oil and gas within the state?

Seems this is the way to begin the slow throttling of the state by the feds.

The feds will escalate this throttle by eventually controlling the ability of our refineries to export product overseas and to ship product by pipelines interstate without onerous restrictions.

I foresee the feds ordering Texas to keep its wells flowing regardless of the state's sovereignty to decide itself.

Time we took the offensive.

I think there are interstate regs that prevent basically creating an embargo. Great idea, but would result in National Guard seizing production, and transportation of hydrocarbons.

A better idea, would be to create an interstate tax or surcharge on petroleum products. But do we really want to start a trade war within the country?

[thackney]

Is there a law preventing the State of Texas from keeping its own oil and gas within the state?

Do you envision the State Government preventing privately owned minerals and their products from selling them on the open market?

It has hard to imagine how this would be controlled.

[Idiot]

When new regulations come out...mainly controlling methane, we need to NOT COMPLY.  If other states can ignore laws at their choosing, so can we. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Do you envision the State Government preventing privately owned minerals and their products from selling them on the open market?

It has hard to imagine how this would be controlled.

The federal govt already does this when it restricts sales or purchases to/from certain countries.

Why is this different?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think there are interstate regs that prevent basically creating an embargo. Great idea, but would result in National Guard seizing production, and transportation of hydrocarbons.

A better idea, would be to create an interstate tax or surcharge on petroleum products. But do we really want to start a trade war within the country?

I know interstate taxes are specifically forbidden by the commerce clause.

We are already at war with other states after a stolen election.

Who do you think will win an economic one if Texas decides to fight back?

[thackney]

The federal govt already does this when it restricts sales or purchases to/from certain countries.

Why is this different?

You want more out of control government taking away rights of private ownership?

[Bigun]

I know interstate taxes are specifically forbidden by the commerce clause.

We are already at war with other states after a stolen election.

Who do you think will win an economic one if Texas decides to fight back?

I'm afraid that there are many who have yet to come to grips with how dire the situation truly is @IsailedawayfromFR

[catfish1957]

I know interstate taxes are specifically forbidden by the commerce clause.

I'd forgotten about that, but there are other squirrelly things oil producing states could do, like full 3X taxation of oil producing paid fob by destination.  While at the same time lessening the taxation on residents in other areas. Of course (wink wink) there would have to be some collusion among the oil states to make it work. 

We are already at war with other states after a stolen election.

Who do you think will win an economic one if Texas decides to fight back?

Typically, no one wins a trade war, and the only real steep loser is the one that blinks first.  Creating our little regional cartel also may create others in various places in the country.  I could envision ones around agricultural , automotive, mining, forestry, etc.

[thackney]

I'm afraid that there are many who have yet to come to grips with how dire the situation truly is

I support succession from the Union over destroying property rights.

I am not interested in adding more levels of government control.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You want more out of control government taking away rights of private ownership?

What is 'out of control' when one allows the feds to dictate where you can sell or how much while you limit your own state from doing so?

When you own the resources and possess the infrastructure to extract, transport, refine and market, you are the one who controls the situation and has the bargaining chips on the poker table.

More residents of this state must come to realize that allegiance to the state is far more important than allegiance to a federal government which bastardizes the contract in which this state is a member of this union.

[thackney]

What is 'out of control' when one allows the feds to dictate where you can sell or how much while you limit your own state from doing so?

Adding a second level of overbearing government is not an improvement to the first level.

When you own the resources and possess the infrastructure to extract, transport, refine and market, you are the one who controls the situation and has the bargaining chips on the poker table.

Yes, but you don't own them and neither does the state.  Individuals, groups of individuals, and their investors own them.  Property rights are a freedom to protect, not throw away.

More residents of this state must come to realize that allegiance to the state is far more important than allegiance to a federal government which bastardizes the contract in which this state is a member of this union.

If the state is taking away private property, they are breaking the contract as well.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Adding a second level of overbearing government is not an improvement to the first level.

Right now our state has waived rights it has to decide how to sell resources within the state.

We are talking about the ability of the state to control the situation, not a second level.  We decide what is best for us, not the federal government.

Yes, but you don't own them and neither does the state.  Individuals, groups of individuals, and their investors own them.  Property rights are a freedom to protect, not throw away.

Well, the state does control more of the resources than any of the groups you mentioned.

And you have already thrown away your property rights when you cede control to an outside entity like the federal govt.

What I am suggesting is to REPLACE the control by the feds with the state.

And you seem to think this will always result in a lower price received than at present.  Why?  As an example, the federal edicts on safety and environment are much more costly than what the state imposes.  Cost savings are translated into higher profits and more overall activity.

If the state is taking away private property, they are breaking the contract as well.

Once again, how can excluding the federal govt from controlling our resources be the state breaking a contract? 

I for one would far rather have any type of control by the state rather than a federal govt dominated by east and west coasts and the big cities to decide how the resources within our state should be handled.

[thackney]

Right now our state has waived rights it has to decide how to sell resources within the state.

We are talking about the ability of the state to control the situation, not a second level.  We decide what is best for us, not the federal government.

Well, the state does control more of the resources than any of the groups you mentioned.

And you have already thrown away your property rights when you cede control to an outside entity like the federal govt.

What I am suggesting is to REPLACE the control by the feds with the state.

And you seem to think this will always result in a lower price received than at present.  Why?  As an example, the federal edicts on safety and environment are much more costly than what the state imposes.  Cost savings are translated into higher profits and more overall activity.Once again, how can excluding the federal govt from controlling our resources be the state breaking a contract? 

I for one would far rather have any type of control by the state rather than a federal govt dominated by east and west coasts and the big cities to decide how the resources within our state should be handled.

Texit yes, bigger government control no.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Texit yes, bigger government control no.

Agreed