A concern I have about APA: oil drilling revenue to states [View All]

[MH1]

Ok this might have been addressed here but if so I missed it. Also I've at least skimmed most of the stuff by JK or quoting him, that's been posted here, about the APA, and I have not seen him mention it once. But when this was mentioned on NPR as part of the bill, a chill ran down my spine - and not the good kind. And NPR may be dubious as a liberal outlet (not necessarily a bad thing) but I don't think they would have made something like this up. So if someone has time to look into this and give your thoughts, I'd be interested in hearing why you think I shouldn't be worried. (if that is what you think!)

So here's what I heard on NPR. The bill includes stipulations giving some control over offshore drilling back to the states. Sounds good, right? I would have thought so in theory, too. One feature is that states will have some veto authority over offshore drilling within x miles from their shore. (if i understand correctly) That's completely good, can't see anything wrong with it. Until this: states will also get a huge % of revenue that would otherwise go to the federal government. I think I heard 37 %. Okay not sure what that revenue is, taxes and fees maybe? But in any case it sounds like a significant chunk of change for state governments struggling to balance their budgets.

So if I got the facts right (and maybe I didn't), does anyone else see what I see? State gov'ts theoretically having some say in offshore drilling, but being shackled by the need for funds into having to approve the drilling anyway? Two words: Marcellus Shale. (ok you might not have heard of it - it's in PA - so make it 3 words).

Your thoughts?