Federal Politics

Published — October 27, 2000 Updated — May 19, 2014 at 12:19 pm ET

Elk Hills: Private or public?

Introduction

The political decision to sell the Elk Hills oil reserve was made from high in the Clinton administration nearly three years before the bids were due on Oct. 1, 1997. The critical time was late 1994 and early 1995, when Patricia Godley, then the Department of Energy’s assistant secretary for fossil energy, tried to get the executive branch to sign off on a plan to create a public corporation to run the field more efficiently and obtain a better assessment of its worth.

The groundwork for the public corporation idea had already been laid in 1993 when, before Godley took office, the then-Democrat-dominated Senate Armed Services Committee asked the National Academy of Public Administration to assess how the government could restructure Elk Hills to maximize profit. NAPA is a statutory body that Congress relies on for its independent, expert opinion on government affairs.

NAPA recommended to Congress in May 1994 that Elk Hills be transformed into a government corporation, like the Tennessee Valley Authority or the U.S. Postal Service, and estimated its net present value under that scenario, citing an internal DOE study, to be nearly $4 billion. And in January 1995, the General Accounting Office, another independent government body, also suggested the option of a publicly owned corporation as a means of increasing profit.

Godley liked the idea of operating Elk Hills as a government corporation and in late 1994 and early 1995 sought the approval of Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary. She already had received the OK from key department officials.

“The Department’s studies and the NAPA report have concluded that corporatization offers the best opportunity to maximize the value of the reserves as a national asset, increase net revenues to the U.S. Treasury, and reduce operational costs,” Godley wrote in a November 1994 memo to O’Leary. “Most recently, there has been bipartisan interest from the Senate Armed Services Committee in corporatizing the program.”

But the White House was already balking. The incoming Congress was going to be controlled by Republicans, who philosophically didn’t want the government operating an oil field. President Clinton and Vice President Gore were reinventing government, bringing in the private sector to take over a number of government functions. And the administration was touting its Middle Class Bill of Rights, which promised tax cuts and balancing the budget. Selling Elk Hills was consistent with these objectives.

So on December 19, 1994, while O’Leary was on a trip to Moscow, her deputy, William H. White, announced at a news conference – with Clinton and Gore at his side – that Elk Hills would be privatized. After mentioning other cuts to slash DOE’s budget, White announced, “Finally, we’re going to get rid of some programs that are programs that the vice president referred to as programs of yesterday.”

But even after White’s announcement, Godley again asked O’Leary to sign the report to Congress recommending corporatization — this time as an interim stage before an outright sale. That would improve performance and therefore increase the field’s value.

In that January 5, 1995, memo to O’Leary, Godley described an earlier meeting with T.J. Glauthier, associate director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. OMB is the office that assists the president in overseeing preparation of the federal budget, evaluates the effectiveness of agency programs, and coordinates the administration’s procurement, financial management, information and regulatory policies.

Godley wrote that Glauthier (who is now DOE’s deputy secretary) made it clear that OMB “continues to favor immediate privatization of the Reserves . . . As a result, we have modified the [recommendation to Congress] to delete an express proposal for corporatizing the Reserves.”

Although in March 1995 O’Leary eventually signed that memo, which endorsed the NAPA report, the proposal never made it to Capitol Hill. Not only did OMB object, but it was a struggle for Godley to get adequate support in Congress for the corporatization idea. By April 1995, she was pushing for an outright sale, abandoning the possibility of trying to run a public corporation to establish true value.

“Congress didn’t think that it was viable as a government corporation,” one congressional staff member familiar with Elk Hills told The Public i. “We weren’t convinced it wouldn’t work, but we weren’t sure it would be the highest value.”

Another congressional source who worked on Elk Hills remembers that there was “a strong section, a small minority of members [of Congress], which believed the government shouldn’t sell it but continue to put money in the Treasury. Others believed it should get out of the oil business.”

Anton Dammer, the current director of DOE’s Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, which managed Elk Hills at the time, says the change in Congress was pivotal in making the sale happen. “There was no accountability or follow-through [in Congress] on corporatization from the previous year, and you had all these gung-ho, quasi-energy lawyers in DOE who are Democrats,” he said, referring to White, Godley and others. “I’m not making a value judgment about this thing, but in my estimation, it [full privatization] went through because it was a Republican House and Senate.”

Despite all the wrangling and the higher value attributed to the 1997 DOE-Bechtel “Upside Study” (which put Elk Hills’ worth at $5.575 billion, or potentially $6.64 billion), Godley insisted in an interview with The Public i that the government got the best price it could, and that a government corporation would not have increased the property’s value to taxpayers. She said she had only one incidental contact with the White House on the Elk Hills sale and never discussed her strategy with Gore or members of his staff.

In the end, Occidental won the auction in October 1997 with $3.65 billion, a figure higher than expected, so the two Democrats who had put up the biggest fight against the sale—ex-Senator Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., and Senator Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.—gave it up.

Read more in Federal Politics

Share this article

Join the conversation

Show Comments

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
9 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
SOUTH JERSEYTed SiroisMark SullivanTom LarkinAnonymous Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mark Sullivan
Guest
Mark Sullivan

Trump needs to conduct these activities because the entire MSM media, excluding Fox, is campaigning against him 24/7/365.

Didn’t Monica’s boyfriend’s wife and various criminal enterprises outspend Trump by almost 2-1?

CapitalistRoader
Guest
CapitalistRoader

Why wouldn’t he get an early start on fund raising? Hillary outspent him two-to-one in 2016. The Dem’s are the party of big money. The President knows this and is attempting to get a jump on it. Of course the Dem candidate will outspend him in 2020 so it’s only rational that he starts fund raising now.

George Young
Guest
George Young

Oh brother. We just 8 years of the Campaigner – in – Chief. Where was this journalistic rectal thermometer then. Just another article about 2000 words too long that merely takes another slap at Trump for something he far from initiated.

j stevenson
Guest
j stevenson

The big difference between Trump and all the rest is his refusing to accept funds from lobbyists, so they don’t have the White House access they are used to. These are the donors who buy the presidency and are as pixxed off that he won the election as are the media and the Dems. Lobbyists have never been shut out of the WH and Trump has told them he is not for sale.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Trump needs to be impeached and tossed in prison. Then have the key thrown away so he will never be free. Then he can see how it feels not to have freedom.

Mark Sullivan
Guest
Mark Sullivan

Thank you for the usual insightful leftist low IQ Snowflake response.

barney
Guest

hes not imprisoning them hes sending them back to their country chill tf out

SOUTH JERSEY
Guest
SOUTH JERSEY

WHY DONT YOU HAVE FREEDOM?

Tom Larkin
Guest
Tom Larkin

First, something positive. I was happy to learn of empirical information in article. BUT, the article was so slanted against President Trump as to be deemed fake news (“Perhaps Trump just lied.” (Two different issues)). The article mentions that President Trump raised over $67 million, but ended 2018 with $19 million. President Trump spent over $40 million 2016 and 2017. President Trump conducted 57 political rallies. The article notes the hats and T-shirts sold, but NEVER MENTIONS THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS during a mid-term election that lost the House and the number of political rallies in… Read more »

Ted Sirois
Guest
Ted Sirois

At least Trump is getting donations from willing donors. Fresh from his first election, Obama used billions of our children’s tax dollars to save thousands of union jobs in the car industry and bailed out the banks and many Wall Street businesses. This secured his source of reelection funds for his reelection four years later.

South Jersey
Guest
South Jersey

TRUMP 2020; IS AN AMAZINGLY SMART MAN! VERY ORIGINAL & CREATIVE. I AM HAPPY TO HAVE HIS AS POTUS.

SOUTH JERSEY
Guest
SOUTH JERSEY

THIS ARTICLE WAS OBVIOUSLY WRITTEN BY, A TRUMP-HATE-GROUP. THAT FEELS; IT IS NOT NORMAL TO BE SUCCESSFUL WITH YOUR OWN BRAND NAME. WHEN, IF FACT, IT IS NORMAL! >>>>> THIS IS >>> FAKE NEWS!!! <<<< ie: A PACK-OF-LIES; SPUN INTO; DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. FOR A SINISTER-AGENDA OF; FASCIST DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, COUP D'ETAT

David
Guest
David

Are you on some kind of drugs? Writing in caps makes me think that you are grumpy old fart or a uneducated hillbilly.