Two federal energy officials may have fed information on unpaidoil royalties that they obtained from producers underconfidentiality agreements to a Washington DC-based watchdog groupto use as ammunition against the producers in a “whistle-blower”lawsuit seeking recovery of back royalties in California. They mayalso have “steered the Department of Interior toward a [royalty]policy favorable” to certain parties, according to a report filedby an investigator with the General Accounting Office (GAO).

These were the key findings of GAO’s Paul Thompson who — atthe request of Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-AK) of the Senate Energyand Natural Resources Committee — was detailed to the committeeto conduct a six-month investigation into reports that two oilpolicy advisors with the Department of Energy (DOE) and Departmentof Interior (DOI) were paid $383,600 each by the Project onGovernment Oversight (POGO) in November 1998 in return for possiblysharing information that led to POGO’s lawsuit to recover back oilroyalties. The proceeds apparently represented the policy advisors’share of a royalty settlement involving Mobil Oil.

Although “the information does not directly establish” thateither Robert Berman, who serves in DOI’s Office of Policy Analysis(OPA), or Robert Speir, a DOE policy advisor and expert on oilvaluation in California who has since retired, “shared their workproducts or related materials with POGO” in return for thepayments, it points strongly in this direction, according toThompson’s report.

“Both officials were a) POGO’s allies in its campaign againstthe [California] oil companies; b) described by [POGO’s DanielleBrian-Stockton] as individuals who should have been allowed to joinher and POGO as parties in its qui tam lawsuit; and c) [were] paidsubstantial amounts from POGO’s lawsuit proceeds.” POGO contendsthe payments, which were made between 1986 and 1996, were “publicservice awards” in recognition of Berman’s and Speir’swhistle-blower efforts. The report said the payments to the menthus far represent a drop in the bucket. They “stand to receivepotentially millions of dollars more” under a written agreementbetween them and POGO, it noted.

In his report, Thompson concluded there was a “reasonableconcern” that Berman and Speir used their “positions andinformation they gathered” to provide POGO with leverage for itswhistle-blower lawsuit. “To the extent that this concern couldinhibit the willingness of industry and others to shareinformation, it would limit the [DOI’s] ability to administer theoil royalty program and similar programs in the future.”

So far, POGO’s lawsuits have been aimed at recovery of back oilroyalties, but the group’s Brian-Stockton indicated at a Housesubcommittee hearing in May that POGO is turning its attention tounderpaid natural gas royalties, which she said will “dwarf thoseof oil royalties.”

The House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee passed aresolution in late June citing three POGO officials for refusing toanswer questions about the payments made to Speir and Berman. Citedwere Keith Rutter, POGO’s assistant executive director; Henry M.Banta, director and former chairman of POGO’s board; andBrian-Stockton, executive director of the group.

The House subcommittee’s resolution was the first step in acontempt of Congress action against the POGO officials. Theresolution now must be acted on by the House Resources Committee,which meets today, and the full House before being sent to theDepartment of Justice (DOJ), which then would decide whether toprosecute the POGO officials. The three could face fines of up to$1,000 and a year in prison. In addition to the House, theinspector generals of the DOI and DOE are investigating the matter,but “apparently little has been done” by them so far, saidMurkowski.

The report that was commissioned by Murkowski has been forwardedto Attorney General Janet Reno, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt,Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, the inspector generals of bothdepartments and FBI Director Louis Freeh.

While Berman and Speir allegedly were feeding POGO ammunitionfor its back royalty lawsuit, the two men also were “substantiallyinvolved in key stages” of developing DOI’s new valuation policyfor oil royalties “in ways that served the interests of POGO’schairman [then Banta] and its executive director [Brian-Stockton],”according to Thompson’s report to the Senate committee. Bantaretired as POGO’s chairman in 1998, at which time he became a DCattorney representing the state of California in its lawsuit torecover back oil royalties. Interior meanwhile was heavily involvedin shaping its new oil royalty valuation policy, which went intoeffect this past June.

“Nothing in the information indicates how the [DOI] would haveformulated its royalty policy had the two advisors not beeninvolved,” but “the possibility exists that…..Berman and Speirwere motivated in their actions by the prospect of participating inor sharing in the proceeds of a POGO qui tam action” against oilproducers, the report said.

“Aside from concerns about the possibility that the [DOI’s]process may have been unduly influenced, this matter also raisesreasonable concerns that the integrity of the royalty program mayhave been compromised by the appearance of impropriety generated bythe payments,” the 42-page report said.

©Copyright 2000 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. Thepreceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, inwhole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent ofIntelligence Press, Inc.