Devon Energy

<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">=</h1><div>getting infamy on pruitt confirmation</div><div>
</div><div>see larry nichols ceo</div><div>
</div><div>why coin? (devon bot jok funder co] Range Resources marcellus psy-ops</div><div>
</div><div>john doe WI?</div><div></div><div><div></div><div>http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/11/13173/fracking-special-interests-spent-big-2016-elections</div><div>
</div><div>Corporations that profit from fracking funneled millions to PACs for "independent expenditures" in the 2016 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings.For example, the fracking giant Devon Energy gave $500,000 to the "Congressional Leadership Fund," a Super PAC "exclusively dedicated to protecting and strengthening the Republican Majority in the House of Representatives." Devon is notorious for helping to bankroll the fight against citizens in Denton, Texas, who won a bid to ban fracking in 2014 . The Denton ban passed with 59% of the vote, but Texas state legislators and members of the American Legislative Exchange Council nullified that local initiative and <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/11/12668/alec-and-big-oil-work-overturn-denton-fracking-ban" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none;">pre-empted</a>. Devon spent $195,000 in disclosed spending in the local battle and has spent an untold sum to influence the results local and in the state capitol.Another corporation with a big interest in fracking gave an additional $500,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund. That half million dollar donation came from Hushang Ansary, the Chairman of Stewart & Stevenson, a manufacturer and distributor of well-stimulation equipment like fracking blenders, fracking pumps, and chemical additive units.Fracking special interests also gave at least $3.35 million to the "Senate Leadership Fund," a Super PAC with "one goal: to protect and expand the Republican Senate Majority." That sum includes $250,000 from Continental Resources, a self-described "leader" in fracking and a $250,000 check from Hushang Ansary, the Chairman of Stewart & Stevenson.The outside spending equivalents that support Democrats--the House Majority PAC and Senate Majority PAC--received no comparable reported donations from the fracking industry.Fracking companies also gave overwhelmingly to the GOP through corporate PACs that include donations from executives and other employees.For example, according to <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Open Secrets</a>, the Devon Energy PAC directly contributed $263,625 this election cycle to 44 federal candidates, 43 of whom were Republican. Continental Resources' PAC gave $118,400 to 31 federal candidates, 27 of whom were Republican. Meanwhile, global oil corporations like ExxonMobil, which now invests significantly in fracking, gave $1,555,000 to candidates, with 90% going to Republicans.When the 115th Congress convenes in January 2017, fracking interests will be well-positioned to play with federal legislation after spending so much to help Members of Congress elected. The Republican Party is firmly in the hands of fossil fuel interests including the fracking industry.(There is no reported figure for how much such corporations spent on groups that are registered as 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations that do not disclose donors and which have grown dramatically since the Citizens United decision. Unlike Super PACs, so-called social welfare organizations like Karl Rove's "One Nation" do not disclose their donors but sometimes play an influential role in the elections. It is not known how much money they may have received from fracking interests but they have received such funding in the past, according to the limited information available.)<h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Fracking Interests Buy the States</h2>The fracking industry also played big in 2016 in state elections, particularly in states that have shale gas formations and tight oil deposits.In Pennsylvania, where the bulk of the Marcellus Shale formation lies, fracking interests <a href="http://www.exposedbycmd.org/wp-admin/followthemoney.org" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">contributed</a> at least $700,000 this election cycle. Amongst those interests was Chesapeake Energy, a company that spent $111,800 this cycle. Its former CEO, Aubrey McClendon, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160303224543/http://articles.philly.com/2011-06-29/news/29717481_1_corbett-campaign-tom-corbett-marcellus-shale" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">once wrote</a> a contribution check to then-Governor Corbett that "arguably changed not just the history but also the political direction of the state."The second largest overall spender in state's 2016 elections was the Senate Republican Campaign Committee of PA. State filings show the committee was financially supported by Consol Energy, Range Resources, Southwestern Energy Company, and Marathon Petroleum Corporation, all of whom are major players in the fracking industry.In North Dakota, the home of the Bakken Formation, fracking interests like Continental Resources <a href="http://followthemoney.org/election-overview?s=ND&y=2016" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">contributed</a> roughly $100,000, a significant amount in a small state.In Texas, a state with colossal shale gas and shale oil reserves, fracking interests <a href="http://followthemoney.org/election-overview?s=TX&y=2016" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">contributed</a> $1.22 million, with all the usual suspects writing checks: Devon Energy, Chesapeake, Pioneer Natural Resources, and Exxon.These numbers are by no means a final tally. There are simply too many campaign spending vehicles to account for, from the "dark money" groups to national organizations like the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) that funnel corporate money into state races.The RSLC, for example, received at least $200,000 from Devon Energy, $201,000 from Marathon Petroleum, and $150,000 from Noble Energy–all of whom operate fracking wells–yet state campaign finance filings only show the Republican State Leadership Committee's name when the committee makes a disbursement, if the name is mentioned at all.<h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Fracking Interests Fight Democracy</h2><div class="clearfix" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">There is a reason why fracking special interests sometimes hide their election activities: the fracking process is so intrusive and damaging, it is leading to popular revolt through local democratic initiatives by Americans affected by the process.Communities that have been fracked are torn apart – physically, metaphorically, ideologically–in a process that shakes them to their core.Although it is particularly salient with fracking, this "popular revolt" phenomenon extends to a host of public policy issues. Repressive workplace conditions, hazardous levels of gun violence, and the unjust deportation of migrant workers have led many municipalities to democratically take action by raising the minimum wage, establishing gun safety measures, and enacting sanctuary city policies.Local governments can right these wrongs, and can ban invasive and harmful practices like fracking, which is why local democracy is seen by corporate interests as a threat. As CMD has <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/02/13029/2016-ALEC-local-control" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">documented</a>, ALEC corporations, including fracking operators, have worked through ALEC and state legislatures to try to supplant local democracy and preempt/prevent cities from regulating corporate activities.ALEC legislators who are members of the GOP have spearheaded state efforts to preempt local democracy. November 8th's election results will likely worsen the situation. The GOP did not just win Washington D.C. on election night; thanks in part to a deluge of corporate-funded outside spending, the party made gains in statehouses across the country.As a result, half of all U.S. states will be under Republican trifectas in 2017, with GOP control of governorships and both houses of state legislatures (including the unicameral Nebraska).For example, in Iowa, a state that just elected a GOP trifecta to office, local <a href="http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2014Research/140130-fracsand-xs.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">bans</a> on fracking sand mining operations could be targeted for preempting by ALEC state lawmakers. The Democrats lost majority control of the state senate in November.Yet not all legislative bodies are willing to preempt local democracy, which is why, as CMD<a href="http://prwatch.org/news/2016/11/13167/oil-gas-industry-spends-big-harder-amend-colorado-constitution" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;"> documented</a>, after a flurry of anti-fracking measures nearly missed being placed on the November ballot in Colorado, fossil fuel interests funded Amendment 71, a ballot initiative designed to make it harder for Coloradans to petition their government and amend the state Constitution.Amendment 71's primary financial support came from the "Protecting Colorado's Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence" PAC, which received $5.38 million from Noble Energy, a fracking operator <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/fracking-company-violations-IP.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">responsible</a> for 358 oil spills between 2009 and 2011, the most of any oil company operating in the state. It received an additional $6.7 million from Anadarko Petroleum, a fracking company that <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/anadarko-anoints-brand-ambassadors-to-fight-off-drilling-bans" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">spent</a> 2016 sending "brand ambassadors" to high schools to speak on the benefits of fracking.In the end, Amendment 71–a ballot initiative which on its face dealt only with governing process and not energy policy–passed with 55% of the vote after the fracking industry poured millions into the campaign.Which is why Amendment 71 serves as a perfect symbol of the 2016 elections. As Michael Klare <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175523/michael_klare_a_new_energy_third_world" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">predicted</a>, in order to frack the nation, Big Oil must first buy it.Klare has detailed what he calls the fossil fuel-funded "third-worldification" of the United States.Klare warned that the "resource curse" theory, which had been used by academics to describe the political conditions of far-off locales like Nigeria, was coming home to the U.S. with the fracking revolution, and that as a consequence, "the rights and wellbeing of local citizens will be trampled underfoot."That political transition would not, however, be self-enacting. Klare proposed that to succeed, "Big Oil will have to overcome a host of regulatory and environmental obstacles. It will, in other words, have to use its version of deep-pocket persuasion to convert the United States into the functional equivalent of a Third World petro-state."The 2016 election was a concrete example of how, as Klare predicted, fracking interests have invested in the state in order to minimize it.Has American democracy been bought by the frackers? Maybe. At the least, fracking interests appear to be renting it for 2017, and with the prospect of Trump in the White House it remains to be seen what national parks or other resources the regularly bankrupt businessman will seek to sell off to a fracking industry intent on currying favor with him.</div><div></div></div><div></div><div>whitsitt</div><div>
</div><div>domestic petrol council</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientissues.php?id=D000050228&year=2013</div><div></div><div>corruption raga pruitt</div><div>
</div><div><h4 style="font-size: 0.875rem; line-height: 1rem; font-weight: 400; font-family: nyt-franklin, arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; text-transform: uppercase; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">KEY DOCUMENTS</h4><ul class="g-document-moments" style="margin: 10px 0px 10px 18px; list-style: none; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: nyt-cheltenham, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li class="g-moment" style="font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4375rem; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; list-style: disc; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><h5 style="font-size: 16px; font-family: nyt-franklin, arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px 0px 4px;">Letters Mr. Pruitt sent to the administration were almost identical to those suggested by lobbyists.</h5>An examination of the letters shows in some cases that Mr. Pruitt took them, signed them and simply sent them along, making almost no changes. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/07/us/politics/attorney-general-letter.html" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In one letter</a>, only 37 words of more than 1,000 were modified.</li><li class="g-moment" style="font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4375rem; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; list-style: disc; padding: 0px; margin: 16px 0px 0px;"><h5 style="font-size: 16px; font-family: nyt-franklin, arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px 0px 4px;">Emails show the Republican Attorneys General Association sells access to a large number of attorneys general.</h5>Devon Energy is a major financial supporter of the association — which Mr. Pruitt took over in 2012 — donating $125,000 this year. In one email exchange, Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff wrote to the head of lobbying at Devon to ask for help in getting the American Petroleum Institute to join the association.</li><li class="g-moment" style="font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4375rem; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; list-style: disc; padding: 0px; margin: 16px 0px 0px;"><h5 style="font-size: 16px; font-family: nyt-franklin, arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px 0px 4px;">Emails between Devon and Mr. Pruitt highlight an effort to block a fracking regulation.</h5>Email exchanges between Devon and Mr. Pruitt, as well as representatives from the<a href="http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/tr/tr_MG_527_Filer.aspx?&sEIN=113655877&sCycle=2014" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Republican Governors Association</a>, show how the company turned to Republican attorneys general and governors for help in trying to block a proposed Bureau of Land Management fracking regulation. The pitch has been successful so far, as the implementation of the rule has been repeatedly delayed.</li><li class="g-moment" style="font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4375rem; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; list-style: disc; padding: 0px; margin: 16px 0px 0px;"><div>
</div></li></ul></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>---http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/politics/energy-firms-in-secretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.htmlabbot pruitt epa clean air plan1st time majority gop, backroom deals12/14 lipton:<h1 itemprop="headline" id="story-heading" class="story-heading" style="line-height: 2.375rem; margin: 0px 0px 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General</h1>The letter to the Environmental Protection Agency from Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma carried a blunt accusation: Federal regulators were grossly overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in his state.But Mr. Pruitt left out one critical point. The three-page letter was written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of Oklahoma’s biggest oil and gas companies, and was delivered to him by Devon’s chief of lobbying.“Outstanding!” William F. Whitsitt, who at the time directed government relations at the company, said in a note to Mr. Pruitt’s office. The attorney general’s staff had taken Devon’s draft, copied it onto state government stationery with only a few word changes, and sent it to Washington with the attorney general’s signature. “The timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday with both E.P.A. and the White House.”Mr. Whitsitt then added, “Please pass along Devon’s thanks to Attorney General Pruitt.”
Courting FavorArticles in this series examine the explosion in lobbying of state attorneys general by corporate interests and the millions in campaign donations they now provide.The email exchange from October 2011, obtained through an open-records request, offers a hint of the unprecedented, secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation’s top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda, an investigation by The New York Times has found.Attorneys general in at least a dozen states are working with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in turn are providing them with record amounts of money for their political campaigns, including at least $16 million this year.They share a common philosophy about the reach of the federal government, but the companies also have billions of dollars at stake. And the collaboration is likely to grow: For the first time in modern American history, Republicans in January will control a majority — 27 — of attorneys general’s offices.The Times reported previously how individual attorneys general have shut down investigations, changed policies or agreed to more corporate-friendly settlement terms after intervention by lobbyists and lawyers, many of whom are also campaign benefactors.But the attorneys general are also working collectively. Democrats for more than a decade have teamed up with environmental groups such as the Sierra Club to use the court system to impose stricter regulation. But never before have attorneys general joined on this scale with corporate interests to challenge Washington and file lawsuits in federal court.Out of public view, corporate representatives and attorneys general are coordinating legal strategy and other efforts to fight federal regulations, according to a review of thousands of emails and court documents and dozens of interviews.“When you use a public office, pretty shamelessly, to vouch for a private party with substantial financial interest without the disclosure of the true authorship, that is a dangerous practice,” said David B. Frohnmayer, a Republican who served a decade as attorney general in Oregon. “The puppeteer behind the stage is pulling strings, and you can’t see. I don’t like that. And when it is exposed, it makes you feel used.”For Mr. Pruitt, the benefits have been clear. Lobbyists and company officials have been notably solicitous, helping him raise his profile as president for two years of the Republican Attorneys General Association, a post he used to help start what he and allies called the Rule of Law campaign, which was intended to push back against Washington.That campaign, in which attorneys general band together to operate like a large national law firm, has been used to back lawsuits and other challenges against the Obama administration on environmental issues, the Affordable Care Act and securities regulation. The most recent target is the president’s executive action on immigration.“We are living in the midst of a constitutional crisis,” Mr. Pruitt told energy industry lobbyists and conservative state legislators at a conference in Dallas in July, after being welcomed with a standing ovation. “The trajectory of our nation is at risk and at stake as we respond to what is going on.”
DOCUMENTA Window Into a Secret Alliance: Attorneys General and the Energy IndustryThe New York Times submitted open-records requests for correspondence between certain energy industry executives and attorneys general who are helping lead an effort they call the Rule of Law campaign to combat Obama administration regulations. Thousands of pages of correspondence emerged. Here is a sampling of the documents, showing how the regulated industries and their lobbyists have secretly worked with the attorneys general to combat Washington.
 OPEN DOCUMENTMr. Pruitt has responded aggressively, and with a lot of helping hands. Energy industry lobbyists drafted letters for him to send to the E.P.A., the Interior Department, the Office of Management and Budget and even President Obama, The Times found.Industries that he regulates have also joined him as plaintiffs in court challenges, a departure from the usual role of the state attorney general, who traditionally sues companies to force compliance with state law.Energy industry lobbyists have also distributed draft legislation to attorneys general and asked them to help push it through state legislatures to give the attorneys general clearer authority to challenge the Obama regulatory agenda, the documents show.“It is quite new,” said Paul Nolette, a political-science professor at Marquette University and the author of the forthcoming book “Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policy Making in Contemporary America.” “The scope, size and tenor of these collaborations is, without question, unprecedented.”And it is an emerging practice that several former attorneys general say threatens the integrity of the office.“It is a magnificent and noble institution, the office of attorney general, as it is truly the lawyer for the people,” said Terry Goddard, a Democrat who served two terms as Arizona’s attorney general and who, like Mr. Frohnmayer, reviewed copies of the documents collected by The Times. “That independence is clearly at risk here. What is happening diminishes the reputation of individual attorneys general and the community as a group.”Mr. Pruitt, who has emerged as a hero to conservative activists, dismissed this criticism as misinformed.“Those kinds of questions arise from the environment we are in — a very dysfunctional, distrustful political environment,” Mr. Pruitt said in an interview. “I can say to you that is not who we are or have ever been, and despite those criticisms we sit around and make decisions about what is right, and what represents adherence to the rule of law, and we seek to advance that and try to do the best we can to educate people about our viewpoint.”In a state dominated by the energy industry, Mr. Pruitt’s stands have been widely popular. “Attorney General Pruitt has been a champion for our state,” said State Senator Mike Schulz, a Republican who is the majority floor leader. “The State of Oklahoma is in a better position than the E.P.A. to regulate drilling.”
But Mr. Pruitt’s ties with industry are clear. One of his closest partners has been Harold G. Hamm, the billionaire chief executive of Continental Resources, which is among the biggest oil and gas drilling companies in both Oklahoma and North Dakota.
GRAPHICA Letter From Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Written Almost Entirely by Energy Company OfficialsDevon Energy’s lawyers and lobbyists drafted letters and provided them to Attorney General Scott Pruitt to send to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department and even President Obama directly. Most of those letters were signed by Mr. Pruitt and sent with few changes. Here is one example, obtained through open-records requests.
 OPEN GRAPHICThis year, Mr. Pruitt joined with a group aligned with Mr. Hamm to sue the Interior Department over its plan to consider adding animals such as the lesser prairie chicken to the endangered species list, a move that Mr. Hamm has said could knock out “some of the most promising land for oil and gas leases in the country.” The suit was filed after Mr. Hamm announced that he would serve as the chairman of Mr. Pruitt’s re-election campaign.
“Time and time again, General Pruitt has stood up and bravely fought for the rights of Oklahomans in those instances when the federal government has overextended its hand,” Mr. Hamm said as his role in Mr. Pruitt’s re-election effort was announced.
A Potent AllyEnergy industry executives and lobbyists from across the United States saw great potential in Mr. Pruitt, a gifted politician who had been a state legislator and a minor-league baseball team co-owner and executive before running for attorney general.Among them was Andrew P. Miller, a patrician 81-year-old former Virginia attorney general. Mr. Miller is a regular at gatherings of state attorneys general at resort destinations, and his client list includes TransCanada, the backer of the Keystone XL pipeline; the Southern Company, the Georgia-based electric utility, which has a large number of coal-burning power plants; and the investor group behind the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska.
For the energy industry, Mr. Pruitt was an easy choice.
“There’s a mentality emanating from Washington today that says, ‘We know best,’ ” Mr. Pruitt said during his 2010 campaign. “It’s a one-size-fits-all strategy, a command-and-control kind of approach, and we’ve got to make sure we know how to respond to that.”
Among Mr. Pruitt’s first acts was to create a “federalism office,” which challenged the Obama administration’s plan to reduce haze in southwestern Oklahoma by requiring coal-burning electricity plants in the state to install new pollution control equipment.
His interaction with the industry, Mr. Pruitt said during an interview at his Oklahoma City office, has been motivated by a desire to gather information from experts, while defending his state’s longstanding tradition of self-determination.That ethos, he said, is depicted in a large oil painting in his office that shows local authorities with rifles at the ready confronting outsiders during the land rush era. “The founders recognized that power concentrated in a few is a bad thing,” Mr. Pruitt said.More of Nation’s Attorneys General Are RepublicanAided by record fund-raising by the Republican Attorneys General Association, Republicans, for the first time in modern history, will control a majority of state attorney general posts in 2015.Party of incoming attorneys general by state, 2015Money raised by attorney general associationsNumber of attorneys general by partyCHARTSources: Republican and Democratic Attorneys General Associations (fund-raising numbers); Paul Nolette, department of political science, Marquette University (attorneys general by party and state)By Alicia Parlapiano
Mr. Miller made it his job to promote Mr. Pruitt nationally, both as a spokesman for the Rule of Law campaign and as the president of the Republican Attorneys General Association.“I regard the general as the A.G. best suited to take this lead on this question of federalism,” Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff in April 2012. “The touchstone of this initiative would be to organize the states to resist federal ‘overreach’ whenever it occurs.”To Mr. Miller, having Mr. Pruitt as an advocate fit a broader strategy. He wanted state attorneys general to band together the way they did when they challenged the health care law in 2010. In that effort, they hired a major national corporate law firm, Baker Hostetler, to argue the case, with much of the bill being paid through donations from executives at corporations that oppose the law.In his initial appeal to Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Miller insisted that his approach was not “client driven.” But he soon began to name individual clients — TransCanada and Pebble Mine in Alaska — that he wanted to include in the effort. The E.P.A. has held up the Pebble Mine project, which could potentially yield 80 billion pounds of copper, after concluding it would “threaten one of the world’s most productive salmon fisheries.”“This strike force ought to take the form of a national state litigation team to challenge the E.P.A.’s overreach,” Mr. Miller said in an email to Mr. Pruitt’s office. “Like the Dalmatian at the proverbial firehouse, it could move out smartly when the alarm sounded.”
A Call to ArmsMr. Miller’s pitch to Mr. Pruitt became a reality early last year at the historic Skirvin Hilton Hotel in Oklahoma City, where he brought together an extraordinary assembly of energy industry power brokers and attorneys general from nine states for what he called the Summit on Federalism and the Future of Fossil Fuels.The meeting took place in the shadow of office towers that dominate Oklahoma City’s skyline and are home to Continental Resources, a leader in the nation’s fastest-growing oil field, the Bakken formation of North Dakota, as well as Devon Energy, which drilled 1,275 new wells last year.More liberal attorneys general, such as Douglas F. Gansler, Democrat of Maryland, did not participate.“Indeed, General Gansler would in all likelihood try to hijack your summit,” Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Pruitt in an email. “At best you would be left to preside over a debate, rather than a call to arms.”
Top Individual Recipients of Energy Industry Money Since 2004Many attorneys general collect contributions directly from energy industry donors, in addition to money passed on from party associations. Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma, for example, has received at least $215,574 from companies and industry employees since 2010, even though he ran unopposed in his most recent election.
Attorney generals highlighted in graywill be in office in 2015ATTORNEYGENERALELECTIONYEARSPARTYSTATECONTRIBUTIONSGreg AbbottRTex.$2,459,2042006, 2010Tom CorbettRPa.577,1922004, 2008Ken PaxtonRTex.488,4112014RMike DeWineOhio321,0332010, 2014Luther StrangeAla.279,200R2010, 2014Gary K. KingDN.M.228,0182006, 2010Scott PruittROkla.215,5742010, 2014Chris KosterDMo.202,4192008, 2012Bill SchuetteRMich.190,5162010, 2014RKenneth T.Cuccinelli IIVa.174,6382009Notes: 2014 data is incomplete. Scott Pruitt was unopposed in 2014.Source: National Institute on Money in State Politics (energy industry contributions)By Alicia ParlapianoOklahoma energy companies were there, according to an agenda, joined by executives from Peabody Energy of Missouri, the world’s largest private-sector coal producer, as well as the SouthernCompany, which has aggressively challenged federal air pollution mandates.The nation’s top corporate energy regulatory lawyers were there, too, including F. William Brownell, a senior partner at the law firm Hunton & Williams, which has spent more than 25 years fighting the enforcement of the Clean Air Act.The event was organized by an energy-industry-funded law and economics center at George Mason University of Virginia. The center is part of the brain trust of conservative, pro-industry groups that have worked from the sidelines to help Mr. Pruitt and other attorneys general.And there was nothing ambiguous about the agenda.“Suggested Responses to Assaults on Federalism” was the topic of one breakfast meeting, moderated by Attorney General Wayne K. Stenehjem of North Dakota, that showcased Mr. Brownell and three other top corporate regulatory lawyers. Mr. Hamm was the featured dinner speaker.“We need to ensure the robust role of the states,” said Paul M. Seby, another coal industry lawyer who attended. “And as the chief law enforcement officers, it is not surprising this is becoming a cornerstone of attorney generals’ attention.”Attorneys general said they had no choice but to team up with corporate America. “When the federal government oversteps its legal authority and takes actions that hurt our businesses and residents, it’s entirely appropriate for us to partner with the adversely affected private entities in fighting back,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi of Florida, whose top deputy attended the meeting.
A ‘Strike Force’The impact of the gathering was immediate. A week later, a new Federalism in Environmental Policy task force was established by lawyers in the offices of 19 state attorneys general, according to email records obtained from the office of Attorney General Timothy C. Fox of Montana, who had participated in the Oklahoma meeting.“This message is in follow-up to the excellent environmental conference put on last week by George Mason University and hosted by the Oklahoma attorney general’s office,” said one email sent byKatie Spohn, the deputy attorney general in Nebraska. “In order to continue our coordination of efforts regarding Federalism in Environmental Policy, I am seeking input from each state who participated in the conference.”PATRICK MORRISEY The West Virginia attorney general got a draft bill from a coal industry lawyer. Mr. Miller was pleased. “Just the kind of strike force I was talking about,” he said in an interview.And the input poured forth. The states worked to detail major federal environmental action, like efforts to curb fish kills, reduce ozone pollution, slow climate change and tighten regulation of coal ash. Then they identified which attorney general’s office was best positioned to try to monitor it and, if necessary, attempt to block it.Follow-up by Mr. Pruitt’s federalism office often came after coordination with industry representatives, especially from Devon Energy. The company, one of the most important financial supporters for the Republican Attorneys General Association, is guarded about its public profile. But it readily turned to Mr. Pruitt and his staff for help, setting up meetings for the attorney general with its chief executive, its chief lobbyist and other important players.“We have a clear obligation to our shareholders and others to be involved in these discussions,” John Porretto, a Devon spokesman, said in a statement.
While some of the exchanges were general in character, others were quite explicit, especially the communication about the E.P.A.’s methane regulations that had prompted Mr. Whitsitt, the Devon official, to propose that Mr. Pruitt send a letter to the agency.
“Just a note to pass along the electronic version of the draft letter to Lisa Jackson at E.P.A.,” said one September 2011 letter to Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff from Mr. Whitsitt. “We have no pride of authorship, so whatever you do on this is fine.”
Mr. Pruitt took the letter and, after changing just 37 words in the 1,016-word draft, copied it onto his state government letterhead and sent it to Ms. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator.
That was just one of his challenges to Washington. Devon officials also turned to Mr. Pruitt to enlist other Republican attorneys general and Republican governors to oppose a rule proposed by the Bureau of Land Management that would regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on federal land.“As promised, we are sending you the attached draft of the R.G.A./RAGA follow-up letter to President Obama opposing B.L.M.’s proposed rule,” Brent Rockwood, Devon’s director of government affairs, wrote to Mr. Pruitt’s staff in late 2012, in an email marked “confidential.”
Weeks later, that letter was sent to Mr. Obama without only a few word changes, signed by Mr. Pruitt and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who was the head of the Republican Governors Association at the time.
ANDREW P. MILLER A version of the lobbyist’s bill was approved by the West Virginia Legislature. Company officials again expressed their pleasure to Mr. Pruitt.
“I’ve learned that we’re having an effect — and may be able to have more, perhaps even to having the rule withdrawn or shifted to almost a reporting-only one,” Mr. Whitsitt wrote, in another email marked “confidential.”
The rule — which the industry claims would cost $346 million a year to comply with — has still not been issued.
Coordination between the corporations and teams of attorneys general involved in the Rule of Law effort also involves actual litigation to try to clear roadblocks to energy projects, documents show.
Energy producers, for instance, wanted to sue the Interior Department as it considered adding animals such as the sage grouse — which nests near sites of oil and gas drilling — to a list of endangered species, a move that could put tens of thousands of acres off limits to new drilling.
The energy companies could have sued on their own, but their executives believed that the case would be more potent by bringing in Mr. Pruitt and the weight of the State of Oklahoma.
“We just came to the conclusion he would be the best person to be the lead attorney on this,” said Mike McDonald, an owner of Triad Energy, a small oil and gas exploration company, and the president of a group that calls itself the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance. “He has exceeded our expectations.”For the industry, the state is an extremely valued partner because states are granted “special solicitude” from the federal courts, a critical advantage to private companies that helps confer legal standing and means that a matter is less likely to be dismissed.Mr. Pruitt’s office, in a statement to The Times, rejected any suggestion that the attorney general has been wrong to send to Washington comment letters written by industry lobbyists, or to take up their side in litigation.“The A.G.’s office seeks input from the energy industry to determine real-life harm stemming from proposed federal regulations or actions,” the statement said. “It is the content of the request not the source of the request that is relevant.”
HAROLD G. HAMM The oil drilling executive was the chairman of Mr. Pruitt’s re-election campaign.Persuading lawmakers to offer legislation has been another effective lobbying tool. In West Virginia, Mr. Miller handed Attorney General Patrick Morrisey a draft of legislation that he argued would put West Virginia in a better position to sue the Obama administration over proposed regulations to tighten pollution controls on power plants, emails show.“I trust you will find the legislation acceptable in its present form,” Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Morrisey in February, referring to a private meeting the two had had in the law library of Mr. Morrisey’s office in Charleston. “If so, I would appreciate your having it introduced by your friends in both the Senate and the House.”A version of the bill was introduced and passed by the West Virginia Legislature in March. Delegate Rupert Phillips Jr., the chief sponsor of a second bill that also contained language identical to what Mr. Miller had requested, said in an interview that he had acted with Mr. Morrisey’s support, an account supported by William B. Raney, the president of the West Virginia Coal Association.“It is nice to have everybody singing from the same sheet of music,” Mr. Raney said.A spokesman for Mr. Morrisey disputed this account, saying that while he supported the effort to challenge the rule, he did not play a role in promoting the legislation.
Blurred LinesThe work in Mr. Pruitt’s office has sometimes seemed to blur the distinction between his official duties and the advancement of his political career.Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff, Crystal Drwenski, served as gatekeeper to his office, arranging meetings and helping companies get Mr. Pruitt and his staff to intervene with the federal authorities. But Ms. Drwenski also played an important supplemental role for the attorney general: fund-raising aide.“A.G. Pruitt is working with the Republican Attorneys General Association on their national meeting in Washington,” Ms. Drwenski wrote to Mr. Whitsitt. “The benefit of membership and participation is having 25 Republican A.G.s in a room to discuss policy issues.”Ms. Drwenski wanted Devon Energy’s help in enlisting the American Petroleum Institute, and Mr. Whitsitt agreed.“I’ve put in a plug to A.P.I.,” Mr. Whitsitt wrote back to Ms. Drwenski, a few hours after her request, having reached out to the organization’s senior lobbyist, Marty Durbin. “He is expecting a call.”In addition to the American Petroleum Institute, major energy companies — ConocoPhillips, the oil and gas company; Alpha Natural Resources, a coal mining giant; and American Electric Power, the nation’s biggest coal consumer — have recently joined the Republican Attorneys General Association, bringing in hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to the group, internal documents show.By last year, the association was starting to pull in so much money under Mr. Pruitt’s leadership that it decided to break free from its partnership with the Republican State Leadership Committee, a group that represents state elected officials. Within months, the association also set up the Rule of Law Defense Fund, yet another legal entity that allows companies benefiting from the actions of Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general to make anonymous donations, in unlimited amounts. Fund-raising skyrocketed.The $16 million that the association has collected this year is nearly four times the amount it collected in 2010, money it used mostly to buy millions of dollars’ worth of television advertisements in states like Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado and Nevada, all places where Republican candidates for attorney general won election.The fund-raising has taken place on the state level as well. Oklahoma Gas & Electric — a for-profit utility that Mr. Pruitt joined with in federal court to fight the E.P.A. — invited its employees to the Petroleum Club in downtown Oklahoma City late last year for a fund-raising event for Mr. Pruitt, drawing donations from about 45 company employees, including the chief executive. Four days later, Mr. Pruitt filed a new appeal in the case — timing that the utility said was a coincidence.While Mr. Pruitt’s efforts to raise money for the Republican Attorneys General Association have been an unqualified success, the lawsuits and regulatory appeals he has filed have yielded mixed results.In May, the Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal on the Oklahoma Gas & Electric matter, meaning the company is now moving ahead on retrofitting its coal-burning plants. But other lawsuits are pending, including Mr. Pruitt’s challenge of the Dodd-Frank law, which rewrote the nation’s financial regulations, and, perhaps most important, his challenge of the tax subsidies that are a critical part of the Obama administration’s health care law.Mr. Pruitt’s staff has juggled various duties — helping major corporations push their challenges against Washington, and then turning to these same executives, at times, to ask them for financial support.For example, Ms. Drwenski, who is no longer Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff, asked Devon Energy in 2012, on a workday afternoon, for help in signing up the American Petroleum Institute as a member of the Republican Attorneys General Association.She used her personal email account to send out the initial request. But the subsequent exchange took place on her work email account, even though Oklahoma state law prohibits state officials from using state property or time to solicit political contributions. A spokesman for Mr. Pruitt said, “It is entirely possible she could have been taking a late lunch.”Mr. Pruitt, who ran unopposed to win a second term, has not needed much of the money himself, but his fund-raising efforts have greatly benefited other Republicans running for the job.That explains the partylike atmosphere late last month in South Florida, where members of the Republican Attorneys General Association held their fall meeting at the chic Fontainebleau Miami Beach, along with hundreds of lobbyists, lawyers and corporate executives, whose companies had paid as much as $125,000 for the privilege to celebrate with them.During the opening reception, on a giant terrace overlooking the Atlantic Ocean, with red, white and blue lights beaming onto the walls and rock music blasting, the Republican attorneys general strode to the stage to trumpet their new majority in the states.Mr. Pruitt was there for the weekend’s festivities, an event at which Devon Energy served as a corporate host, with banners hung in the hotel hallways featuring the corporate logo.The Oklahoma attorney general’s stay was brief. The Rule of Law campaign had a new and urgent target.“Our president sees himself as above the law,” Mr. Pruitt said from Oklahoma City as he announced several days later yet another front in the campaign, a lawsuit he planned to file to challenge the Obama administration’s new immigration policies. “We will take action to hold him accountable.3/15
<div class="print-content"><div id="node-1033850" class="node node-story view-mode-print clearfix" about="/fracking/inside-big-energys-alliance-intelligence-clamp-down-fracking-opponents" typeof="sioc:Item foaf:Document" style="position: relative;"><div class="the_body body_environment clearfix">In August 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Domestic Terrorism Analysis Unit distributed <a href="http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/spring2015/assets/fbiBulletin.pdf" rel="shadowbox" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">an intelligence bulletin</a> [3] to all field offices warning that environmental extremism would likely become an increasing threat to the energy industry. The eight-page document argued that, even though the industry had encountered only low-level vandalism and trespassing, recent “criminal incidents” suggested that environmental extremism was on the rise. The FBI concluded: “Environmental extremism will become a greater threat to the energy industry owing to our historical understanding that some environmental extremists have progressed from committing low-level crimes against targets to more significant crimes over time in an effort to further the environmental extremism cause.”Not long after the bulletin was distributed, a private security firm providing intelligence reports to the Pennsylvania Department of Homeland Security cited the FBI document in order to justify the surveillance of anti-fracking groups. The same security firm concluded that the “escalating conflict over natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania” could lead to an increase in “environmentalist activity or eco-terrorism.”Since the 2010 FBI assessment was written, the specter of environmental extremism has been trotted out by both law enforcement and energy-industry security teams to describe a wide variety of grassroots groups opposed to the continued extraction of fossil fuels. In 2011, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP ) <a href="http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/spring2015/assets/RCMP.pdf" rel="shadowbox" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">published a report</a> [4] titled, “Environmental Criminal Extremism and Canada’s Energy Sector.” The RCMP warned that environmental extremism posed a “clear and present criminal threat” to the energy industry. While both the FBI and RCMP reports make an effort to distinguish between lawful protest and criminal activity, they often conflate the two – in the RCMP report the terms “violence” and “direct action” are used interchangeably – and suggest opposition to the energy industry will lead to extremism. (The FBI’s Counterterrorism Division declined to answer questions about the 2010 bulletin.)Yet even as the resistance to “extreme energy projects” has grown in size and scope, there is little evidence to support the breathless warnings about “eco-terrorism.” There has been no upward spiral in criminality among environmental activists. To the contrary, arson, property destruction, and other acts of violence most closely associated with the radical animal rights movement of the 1980s and 1990s have become all but nonexistent. According to figures compiled by the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) at the University of Maryland, there has been only a handful of incidents defined as eco-terrorism since 2010. In fact, between 2010 and 2013, the latest year for which the GTD has published figures, out of a total of 54 terror incidents in the United States, five were attributed to the Animal Liberation Front. The last recorded incident carried out by the Earth Liberation Front – the bulldozing of two radio transmission towers in Washington – was in 2009. Earth First! hasn’t appeared in the database since 1994.Instead, environmentalists have largely relied on classic social change strategies such as choreographed nonviolent civil disobedience, carefully planned protests, and divestment from the fossil fuel industry. “Overall we’ve seen a decline in activity, in terms of violent criminal activity” among environmentalists, an FBI intelligence analyst told <cite>The Washington Post</cite> in 2012.Nevertheless, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and many state law enforcement agencies continue to promote the idea that environmental extremism is on the rise. The oil and gas industry is spending more on security than it ever has. According to a 2013 report by Frost & Sullivan, a marketing research and consulting company, annual spending on global oil and gas infrastructure security is expected to top $30 billion in just a few years. (In comparison, $30 billion is roughly what South Korea spends on defense annually.) “Surveillance will continue to dominate the oil and gas infrastructure security market,” a summary of the report states.At the same time, numerous intelligence-sharing networks between the private sector and law enforcement have been established at every level of government, giving rise to an unprecedented energy-intelligence complex. They range from project-specific and regional networks like the Nebraska Information Analysis Center’s Keystone Pipeline Portal community and the Marcellus Shale Operators’ Crime Committee, to federal programs like the FBI’s Oil and Natural Gas Crime Issues Special Interest Group and the Department of Homeland Security’s Oil and Natural Gas Sector Coordinating Council. These public-private partnerships, coupled with a revolving door between intelligence agencies and the more lucrative energy industry, have created a new kind of foe for the environmental movement. The fossil fuel industry is now an economic behemoth firmly hitched to the national security state.It is true that environmentalists pose a threat to the energy industry – just not in the way the FBI or RCMP believe. The threat to the industry is existential and economic, not extremist. If the movement to end our reliance on fossil fuels prevails, the oil and gas industry will lose trillions of dollars in forecast profits. According to an estimate by the <a href="http://www.carbontracker.org/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Carbon Tracker Initiative</a> [5], if we hope to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, the energy sector would have to leave more than $20 trillion worth of fossil fuels in the ground. “The oil and gas industry is doing everything they can to ensure they’re in business for the next 30 to 50 years and doing so at a time when we should be, as a nation, collectively figuring out how to stop using those same fossil fuels over the next ten years,” says Wes Gillingham, program director of <a href="http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Catskill Mountainkeeper</a> [6].Conflict between fossil fuel interests and environmentalists is inevitable. But as the contest becomes ever more stark, there seems to be little effort to distinguish between lawful political activism and illegal activities. The fossil fuel industry’s reasonable concerns about the strength of its political opponents have morphed into a kind of paranoia, one that threatens to criminalize constitutionally protected dissent.In the years since the FBI and RCMP reports, unconventional oil and gas development has been met with sustained protest, from small scale tree sits and encampments to massive nationwide demonstrations. The opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline is only the most high-profile example of resistance to the fossil fuel industry. The term “Blockadia” has been used to describe the loose network of citizens seeking to disrupt the continued exploitation of fossil fuels. Tactics vary depending on the region and political backdrop, but the emphasis has been on nonviolent civil disobedience, legal action, and ballot measures to hamper pipeline projects, ban fracking, and prevent or slow down tar sands extraction. A handful of pipeline projects – including Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and Williams Companies’ Constitution pipelines – have been stymied. In mid-December, after several years of intense organizing, lobbying, and direct action campaigns, New York became the first state with substantial shale gas reserves to ban fracking. Towns in Colorado, Texas, and Ohio have passed restrictions that limit oil and gas drilling.Such successes have emboldened these groups and inspired action elsewhere. (Of course it should be noted that oil and gas development has hardly been halted; it continues apace throughout North America.) Rather than lead to an increase in criminal activity, as the FBI predicted, opposition to the oil and gas industry has, in some ways, become more mainstream. “Five years ago you would have never seen the faces of rural farmers and ranchers and tribal leaders on the front lines of climate actions,” says Jane Kleeb, director of <a href="http://boldnebraska.org/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Bold Nebraska</a> [7], an environmental group opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline. “This unlikely Cowboy and Indian Alliance that is also working shoulder to shoulder with big green groups is changing the way America looks at the issue of land, water, and climate change.”But the new face of the environmental movement seems not to have registered with an industry intent on steamrolling its critics. In 2011, in comments that have been widely cited, a spokesman for Anadarko Petroleum described the anti-fracking movement as an “insurgency” and suggested that industry insiders download the US Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual as a guide to dealing with it. Less well known is the fact that Anadarko has built up a team of former intelligence operatives to combat what it views as an insurrection. The company’s southwest regional security manager was an officer with the Drug Enforcement Administration, where he was involved in undercover work. Another Anadarko security manager, LC Wilson, was regional commander of the Texas Department of Public Safety from 2009 to 2011 and oversaw law enforcement statewide. Anadarko has also been involved in the creation of at least two Oilfield Crime Committees, one in Texas and one in Pennsylvania, both of which are headed by former law enforcement officials. The South Texas Oilfield Crime Committee and the Marcellus Shale Operators’ Crime Committee have gathered intelligence on environmental activists and routinely exchange information with law enforcement.Anadarko is not alone. Most large energy companies have security teams run by former FBI, Secret Service, or law enforcement personnel. The director of corporate security at Devon Energy, for example, was a special agent with the Secret Service for 14 years. Chevron’s chief security officer was the former head of the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service. And BP’s head of Government and Political Affairs from 2007 to 2012 worked for MI6, Britain’s top spy agency.In most cases these security teams have been deployed to manage crises overseas. In Indonesia, for example, ExxonMobil ran its own intelligence operations and consulted regularly with the country’s military leaders as it sought to protect its assets amid destabilizing political conditions. In 2012 <cite>The Guardian</cite> reported that Shell Oil maintained a 1,200-person police force plus a network of undercover informants in Nigeria and spent tens of millions of dollars on security in the region.As shale oil and gas development has expanded in North America, the frontlines of the energy wars are no longer overseas, but rather in places like Nebraska, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Range Resources, one of the largest drillers in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, has admitted to hiring veterans of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with experience in psychological warfare – or Psyops – to engage with local communities.Neither Anadarko nor ExxonMobil nor Range Resources responded to requests for comment.Even as the energy industry has beefed up its own in-house intelligence operations, it has established increasingly close ties with law enforcement agencies. This is partly a result of the post-9/11 national security state and the premium placed on information sharing. The Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC), established by the Department of Homeland Security in 2006, holds quarterly meetings to facilitate information sharing between the private sector and government agencies. (Meetings are exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which means there is no public oversight. Indeed, the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002 stipulates that information voluntarily submitted by industry to the DHS or DOE is protected from public disclosure.) Within CIPAC there is an Oil and Natural Gas Sector Coordinating Council and an Energy Government Coordinating Council. According to minutes from an August 2013 CIPAC meeting, the DHS has been working to provide more security clearances to the energy industry. “Currently DHS is working to enhance policies to share more classified information both cyber and non-cyber related,” the document states. Anadarko, Kinder Morgan, ExxonMobil, and the American Petroleum Institute are frequent participants and sponsors of CIPAC meetings.In addition to CIPAC there is a Homeland Security Information Sharing Network for the Oil and Gas Industry (HSIN-ONG), a web-based platform that allows companies to communicate with each other and with law enforcement. It also gives them access to Suspicious Activity Reports and other intelligence related information. Around the same time that the information-sharing network was being created, the Department of Justice launched its National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative to “improve the sharing of suspicious activity reports among state, local, tribal, and federal law-enforcement organizations, as well as private sector entities.”Intelligence-sharing systems also have been developed at the state level. The Nebraska Information Analysis Center (one of more than 70 Homeland Security “fusion centers”) has its own network that focuses on “possible unlawful tactics and techniques of individuals/groups opposed to Keystone XL pipeline.” According to documents obtained by <cite>Earth Island Journal</cite> through a public records request, oil infrastructure company TransCanada has its own page in the HSIN portal where suspicious activity reports can be posted. TransCanada representatives, FBI agents, county attorneys, local sheriffs, and the US assistant attorney general all have access to the Keystone pipeline network.Despite the numerous federal, state, and regional information-sharing networks established during the past decade, the industry has been reluctant to participate in programs that might be subject to public oversight. Thus last summer the oil and gas industry announced the creation of its own information sharing and analysis center, or ISAC, which allows member companies to submit intelligence anonymously and is exempt from public disclosure.The industry’s fear of transparency is part of a larger pattern. Oil and gas firms often express alarm about having their facilities photographed or filmed by citizen watchdogs, which can lead to official investigations. For example, in 2011 the Rocky Mountain Energy Security Group (yet another regional intelligence sharing network) issued a security report that described activists in Pavillion, Wyoming who had photographed a natural gas processing facility. The report, which was disseminated to law enforcement and security professionals in the industry, defined the behavior as “suspicious activity” and said that the information was being circulated in order to determine “whether the activity has any underlying criminal or terrorism nexus (or intent).”In recent years the FBI has pursued environmental activists in Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho for little more than taking photographs of oil and gas industry installations.In 2011, after receiving an anonymous tip, the FBI went after Texas activist Ben Kessler, a member of the direct action environmental group <a href="http://risingtidenorthamerica.org/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Rising Tide North America</a> [8]. In November 2013 and February 2014, a Pennsylvania state trooper and member of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force visited anti-fracking activists at their homes in New York and Pennsylvania under the pretext that they had trespassed while taking photos of a gas compressor station. More recently, members of Rising Tide in the Pacific Northwest have been contacted or visited by FBI agents. (The energy companies’ fear of transparency is in some ways similar to the livestock industry’s exposé anxiety, which has led to the passage of so-called ag-gag laws that prohibit the filming of farms and ranches.)The frontlines of the energy wars are no longer overseas, but rather in places like Nebraska, Texas, and Pennsylvania.But what happens when the private sector’s assumptions about criminal activity are wrong or misleading? In Pennsylvania the oil and gas industry has driven speculation that environmental organizations were behind several acts of vandalism at or near drilling sites, even though there’s no evidence of any link whatsoever. The unfounded assertion has spilled into the local press. In February 2014, The <cite>Williamsport Sun-Gazette</cite> in northeast Pennsylvania ran a story about the crimes headlined, “Ecoterror Target: Gas companies bolster security in response to threats.”Jeff Monaghan, a PhD candidate in Sociology at Queen’s University in Ontario who writes on issues of surveillance, says the RCMP document reflects how deeply intertwined the suspicions of energy companies and intelligence agencies have become. “The broader context of this document is a very, very close working relationship between the Critical Infrastructure Protection team and the energy corporations. As the relationship develops the underlying belief is that environmentalists are first-and-foremost a threat to the economy. It’s really about protecting shared values of economic growth.”Or, as the RCMP report put it, “Canada’s economic growth … and the objectives of environmentalists are in direct conflict.” Environmental activists wouldn’t disagree with that, especially given the aggressive pro-energy policies of the Harper government. What they take issue with is the highly provocative claim that their opposition to the energy industry will likely lead to criminal activity. As the interests of the state and energy sector become increasingly close, however, this perception is taking hold. Activists worry that it is shaping law enforcement’s approach to the movement and could lead to a crackdown on legal protest.“It doesn’t surprise me that the industry is trying really hard to paint the environmental movement as fringe or dangerous, because it’s their last resort,” says Catskill Mountainkeeper’s Gillingham. “It’s behavior based on a losing argument.”The conflict over the Keystone XL pipeline has reinforced the narrative that economic prosperity and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. Pipeline proponents like to paint the opposition as job killers and, yes, extremists. In April 2014, Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, described the pipeline as “a project that is being blocked purely by environmental extremism.” More recently, US Senator Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, called anti-fracking activists campaigning for a moratorium “radical environmentalists.” A major Washington PR firm, Berman and Co., has launched an ad campaign bankrolled by the energy industry called “Big Green Radicals” that seeks to smear high-profile activists.But the demonization of environmental advocates goes far beyond mere polemics. TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, has worked closely with law enforcement along the proposed pipeline route from the very early stages of its development. A certain amount of collaboration with law enforcement is to be expected with any major infrastructure project. But TransCanada has gone further. The company has pressured attorneys general to prosecute environmental activists under terrorism statutes. It has given local law enforcement advance notice of meetings with landowners whom the company describes as hostile. And the company has held workshops with local law enforcement and the FBI, including a daylong “strategy meeting” in Oklahoma with the FBI in 2012.According to documents obtained by <cite>Earth Island Journal</cite>, the FBI distributed a bulletin in early 2013 “regarding threat concerns by environmental extremists against the Keystone Pipeline expansion project” to law enforcement across Nebraska. In its strategic plan for 2014-2017, South Dakota Homeland Security identifies what it considers to be extremist enclaves in the state, through which Keystone is proposed to pass. According to the document, “Uranium mining in the southwest part of the state and a proposed oil pipeline in the western part of the state garnered the attention of extremist environmental groups.” The report does not describe or name the groups, their intentions, or tactics. A public records request for additional documents or communication regarding “extremist environmental groups” in South Dakota was denied.(Read the FBI bulletin <a href="http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/spring2015/assets/fbiBulletin.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">here</a> [3].)In 2013 <cite>Earth Island Journal</cite> <a href="http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/undercover_agents_infiltrated_tar_sands_resistance_camp_to_break_up_planned/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">reported on the infiltration of a Tar Sands Resistance training camp</a> [9] in Oklahoma. Two undercover officers from the Bryan County Sheriff’s office attended the weeklong event and shared intelligence with the Oklahoma Department of Homeland Security Fusion Center. Law enforcement was tipped off and a planned act of civil disobedience was preempted. During that same week TransCanada’s corporate security advisor was in frequent contact with the Oklahoma Fusion Center and made comments on a classified situational awareness bulletin.In many ways Texas, where the Keystone pipeilne would terminate, is the heart of the American oil and gas industry. Not surprisingly, activists there are routinely harassed by law enforcement and corporate security for nothing more than keeping tabs on the industry. In East Houston, the city’s industrial hub and most polluted neighborhood (Houston itself is one of the most polluted cities in the country), environmental activist and community organizer Bryan Parras has been questioned by the police on several occasions and once was contacted by a Coast Guard special agent assigned to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Houston. The organization he helps run with his father, <a href="http://tejasbarrios.org/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services</a> [10] (or TEJAS), has been closely watched. Parras frequently takes activists and journalists on what he calls “toxic tours” – a survey of the neighborhood’s refineries, chemical plants, and shipping ports. He’s made a point of documenting the air pollution caused by the flaring at the refineries that flank the neighborhood. He says the images “compel people to action.”They’ve also made Parras a subject of interest for industry and law enforcement. He is routinely questioned by the police or harassed by security representatives from Valero Energy, a major refining company and one of the industries Parras monitors. In 2013 Parras got a text from a friend, Tish Stringer, saying that an agent had visited her home and wanted to know about her relationship with him. The Coast Guard special agent, David Pileggi, told Stringer he’d been tipped off by Valero.“It’s nothing new,” Parras says. “Since 9/11 we’ve been harassed repeatedly and pulled over for taking pictures or video of the facilities.”In an emailed statement, Bill Day, vice president of communications at Valero, said the Houston refinery is designated by Homeland Security as “critical infrastructure” and therefore must meet enhanced security requirements. “One of those requirements,” he wrote, “is that when we see people taking photos or video of our facilities, we ascertain the purpose of that activity and then report it to DHS.” According to Shauna Dunlap, media coordinator for the FBI’s Houston Division, photographing and videotaping of critical infrastructures “can be a precursor of potential criminal activity.” The Joint Terrorism Task Force, she says, is “obligated to look into each and every suspicious activity report.”This kind of surveillance and intimidation, Parras says, is particularly chilling in an area with a large number of undocumented residents. Not only are they vulnerable to threats of deportation, but also they’re quite literally at the crossroads of environmental destruction and the risks associated with climate change. East Houston is home to a disproportionate number of the city’s largest sources of industrial pollution, four major highways, and the shipping channel that feeds into the Port of Houston. If built, the Keystone XL pipeline would terminate in East Houston; Valero has a contract with TransCanada to receive most of the oil. “On the basis of location alone these neighborhoods appear far more vulnerable to health risks than others in Greater Houston,” a 2006 study commissioned by the mayor’s office concluded. In addition, rising sea levels threaten to inundate the heavily industrialized shoreline. “It puts us at even higher risk because we’re on the coast,” says Parras. “All these facilities are right on the water.”In many ways, for activists like Parras the last line of defense lies in taking photos, documenting the impacts of industrial pollution, and simply bearing witness. TEJAS hasn’t even engaged in civil disobedience or direct action, he says. Still, his organization is on Valero’s watch list. TEJAS organizers have been followed and photographed or videoed by Valero security personnel. Local teachers who joined Parras on one of his toxic tours were bullied into deleting photos and video they had taken of the refinery. Journalists he has shown around have been threatened by Valero that they’ll be reported to the FBI.In the eyes of the oil and gas industry this is the new environmental extremism. And that view is being shared with law enforcement at every level.The intimidation and surveillance have had an impact. Parras says his advocacy has been compromised by Valero’s scrutiny of his organization and the refinery’s close relationship with law enforcement. “It’s difficult to get neighbors to want to engage and speak out,” he says. <div class="bio-new body_environment"><div class="author-bio">Adam Federman, recipient of a Polk Grant for Investigative Reporting, is a contributing writer to Earth Island Journal. His work has appeared in Salon, among other outlets.</div></div></div></div></div></div><div>=<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/07/3600475/investigation-energy-firms-attorneys-general-fighting-federal-government/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/07/3600475/investigation-energy-firms-attorneys-general-fighting-federal-government/</a>Energy firms and state attorneys general have established a secretive alliance in an effort to derail environmental oversight and promote fossil fuels, according to an in-depth New York Times’ <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/politics/energy-firms-in-secretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html?smid=tw-share" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">investigation</a> published this weekend. Having reviewed thousands of emails and legal documents and undertaken dozens of interviews, the Times found that “Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation’s top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda.”<div id="in-content-ad" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 22.4400005340576px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Using Oklahoma as an example, open-records requests revealed that Attorney General Scott Pruitt delivered a letter to the EPA in 2011 accusing the agency of significantly overestimating the air pollution caused by fracking. Pruitt did not mention that the letter was originally written by representatives of Devon Energy, one of the state’s largest oil and gas companies.“The attorney general’s staff had taken Devon’s draft, copied it onto state government stationery with only a few word changes, and sent it to Washington with the attorney general’s signature,” reports the Times.Devon Energy is a major supporter of the Republican Attorneys General Association, whose mission is electing Republicans to the Office of Attorney General. The company has donated significantly to the campaigns of climate deniers, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/16/1872591/dirty-energy-fuels-climate-change-denier-ken-cuccinellis-campaign/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">giving</a> $800,000 to former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial campaign in 2013. Devon Energy also gave <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/20/1614831/lobbying-budgets-of-keystone-xl-opponents-exceeded-that-of-supporters-by-more-than-35-to-1/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">over a million</a> dollars to the lobbying effort in support of the Keystone XL pipeline in 2012. Pruitt is head of the Republican Attorneys General Association, which has collected $16 million this year — nearly four times the amount it collected in 2010.According to the Times, at least a dozen states now have attorneys general working with “energy companies and other corporate interests” that are in exchange providing them with unheard of amounts of political funds. This impact of this effort can be seen in this year’s election results, as Republicans will hold 27 state attorney’s general offices starting in January — the first time they’ve had a majority in recent history.The Times reports that Devon Energy “readily turned to Mr. Pruitt and his staff for help” as part of a broader national effort bringing together powerful energy interests and attorneys general. The establishment of a new Federalism in Environmental Policy task force by the offices of 19 state attorneys general has bolstered attempts to push back on federal actions to reduce ozone pollution, protect endangered species, regulate fracking, and limit greenhouse gas emissions. The scale of this coordination with corporate interests is unprecedented.Pruitt changed 37 words out of 1,016 when repurposing a letter drafted by Devon lawyers for submission to then head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, about the agency’s methane regulations. The Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/07/us/politics/documents-attorneys-general-and-the-energy-industry.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">published</a> 80-plus pages of notes and documents showing the extent to which Devon and other energy companies have been working with state attorneys general to fight federal actions.In responding to questions about his involvement with industry lobbyists, Pruitt said that “it is the content of the request not the source of the request that is relevant.” He went on to say that Devon Energy is an important energy producer and job creator for Oklahoma and that the overreach of the federal government into the regulation of fracking is not only bad for Devon, but also would negatively impact citizens of the state.A recent <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6192/13.summary" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">study</a> published in the journal Science found that nearly all of the more than 2,500 small earthquakes that have hit Oklahoma in the past five years can be linked to the process of drilling for oil and gas. Spills related to fracking have also <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/31/3466283/olympic-pool-sized-hydrochloric-acid-spill-oklahoma/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">threatened</a>water supplies in the state.In another recent display of the coordination between energy firms and state-level Republican politicians, this week the American Legislative Executive Council held their annual closed-door meeting in D.C. They <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/05/3599846/getting-turned-away-from-the-alec-conference/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">pushed</a> a number of anti-clean energy initiatives, including a resolution to abolish the EPA.</div><div></div><div><h4 style="line-height: 1rem; font-weight: 400; margin: 0px; text-transform: uppercase; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">KEY DOCUMENTS</h4><ul class="g-document-moments" style="margin: 10px 0px 10px 18px; list-style: none; padding-left: 0px;"><li class="g-moment" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.4375rem; list-style: disc; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h5 style="margin: 0px 0px 4px;">Letters Mr. Pruitt sent to the administration were almost identical to those suggested by lobbyists.</h5>An examination of the letters shows in some cases that Mr. Pruitt took them, signed them and simply sent them along, making almost no changes. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/07/us/politics/attorney-general-letter.html" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In one letter</a>, only 37 words of more than 1,000 were modified.</li><li class="g-moment" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.4375rem; list-style: disc; padding: 0px; margin: 16px 0px 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h5 style="margin: 0px 0px 4px;">Emails show the Republican Attorneys General Association sells access to a large number of attorneys general.</h5>Devon Energy is a major financial supporter of the association — which Mr. Pruitt took over in 2012 — donating $125,000 this year. In one email exchange, Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff wrote to the head of lobbying at Devon to ask for help in getting the American Petroleum Institute to join the association.</li><li class="g-moment" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.4375rem; list-style: disc; padding: 0px; margin: 16px 0px 0px;"><h5 style="margin: 0px 0px 4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Emails between Devon and Mr. Pruitt highlight an effort to block a fracking regulation.</h5>Email exchanges between Devon and Mr. Pruitt, as well as representatives from the<a href="http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/tr/tr_MG_527_Filer.aspx?&sEIN=113655877&sCycle=2014" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Republican Governors Association</a>, show how the company turned to Republican attorneys general and governors for help in trying to block a proposed Bureau of Land Management fracking regulation. The pitch has been successful so far, as the implementation of the rule has been repeatedly delayed....</li><li class="g-moment" style="list-style: disc; padding: 0px; margin: 16px 0px 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/07/us/politics/documents-attorneys-general-and-the-energy-industry.html">http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/07/us/politics/documents-attorneys-general-and-the-energy-industry.html</a></li></ul></div><div></div>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Devon_Energy

Devon Energy is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. According to its company website, Devon's operations are "focused onshore in the United States and Canada. We also own natural gas pipelines and treatment facilities in many of our producing areas, making us one of North America's larger processors of natural gas liquids."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Devon_Energy#cite_note-0">[1]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Devon_Energy#" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>] </div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Devon_Energy#Citizen_action">1 Citizen action</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Devon_Energy#Contact">2 Contact</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Devon_Energy#Resources_and_articles">3 Resources and articles</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Devon_Energy#Related_Sourcewatch_articles">3.1 Related Sourcewatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Devon_Energy#References">3.2 References</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Citizen action</h2>

<h2>Contact</h2>

<dl>

<dd>Web: <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.devonenergy.com">http://www.devonenergy.com</a></dd>

</dl>

<h2>Resources and articles</h2>

<h3>Related Sourcewatch articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Texas_and_fracking" title="Texas and fracking">Texas and fracking</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ConocoPhillips" title="ConocoPhillips">ConocoPhillips</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_of_the_Americas" title="Institute of the Americas">Institute of the Americas</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wood_River_Refinery" title="Wood River Refinery">Wood River Refinery</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ecuador_EcoFund" title="Ecuador EcoFund">Ecuador EcoFund</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Gwyn_Morgan" title="Gwyn Morgan">Gwyn Morgan</a> - Founding President</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_D._Watson" title="John D. Watson">John D. Watson</a> - former CFO</li>

</ul>

<h3>References</h3>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Devon_Energy#cite_ref-0">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.devonenergy.com/AboutDevon/Pages/about_devon.aspx#terms?disclaimer=yes">"Deven Energy Corporation"</a> accessed January 17, 2013.</li>

</ol>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Energy" title="Category:Energy">Energy</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Fracking" title="Category:Fracking">Fracking</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Water" title="Category:Water">Water</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Corporations" title="Category:Corporations">Corporations</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

</h1>

<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Larry_Nichols&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Larry Nichols (page does not exist)">Larry Nichols</a>, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Devon Energy Corporation NAM bd</h1>

J. Larry Nichols

Born: <a href="http://www.nndb.com/lists/705/000106387/" class="proflink">6-Jul</a>-<a href="http://www.nndb.com/lists/941/000105626/" class="proflink">1942</a>

Gender: Male

Race or Ethnicity: White

Occupation: Business

Party Affiliation: Republican

Nationality: United States

Executive summary: CEO of Devon Energy

Father: John W. Nichols (b. 1914, d. 3-Aug-2008)

Mother: Mary Davis

University: <a href="http://www.nndb.com/edu/549/000068345/">BS Geology, Princeton University (1964)</a>

Law School: <a href="http://www.nndb.com/edu/512/000068308/">JD, University of Michigan (1967)</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/company/582/000098288/">Devon Energy</a> CEO (1980-)

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/company/582/000098288/">Devon Energy</a> President (1976-2003)

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/company/582/000098288/">Devon Energy</a> Co-Founder (1971)

Member of the Board of <a href="http://www.nndb.com/company/013/000120650/">American Stock Exchange</a>

Member of the Board of <a href="http://www.nndb.com/company/656/000098362/">Baker Hughes</a> (2001-)

Member of the Board of <a href="http://www.nndb.com/company/741/000126363/">BOK Financial</a> (1997-)

Member of the Board of <a href="http://www.nndb.com/company/582/000098288/">Devon Energy</a> (1971-, as Chairman, 2000-)

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/gov/374/000123005/">Law Clerk</a> to US Supreme Court Justice <a href="http://www.nndb.com/people/015/000054850/">Earl Warren</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/gov/374/000123005/">Law Clerk</a> to US Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/794/000169287/">Ashcroft 2000</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/098/000056927/">Black America's PAC</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/082/000167578/">Bush-Cheney 2000</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/217/000356146/">Business-Industry PAC</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/363/000123991/">Domestic Petroleum Council</a> Board of Directors

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/796/000169289/">Friends of George Allen</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/186/000219526/">Friends of Jim Inhofe Committee</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/083/000167579/">George W. Bush for President</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/742/000126364/">Independent Petroleum Association of America</a> Board of Directors

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/744/000126366/">Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico</a> Board of Directors

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/272/000172753/">Kay Bailey Hutchison for Senate</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/496/000122130/">National Association of Manufacturers</a> Board of Directors

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/523/000059346/">National Petroleum Council</a> Board of Directors

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/877/000171364/">National Republican Congressional Committee</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/716/000171203/">National Republican Senatorial Committee</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/743/000126365/">Natural Gas Supply Association</a> Board of Directors

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/745/000126367/">Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association</a> Board of Directors

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/126/000355058/">Republican Majority Fund</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/745/000167244/">Romney for President</a>

<a href="http://www.nndb.com/org/023/000354955/">Romney Victory Inc.</a>

<h1 class="headline">Wyoming considers adding fossil fuels to school curriculum — with the industry’s help</h1>

By <a href="http://grist.org/author/philip-bump/" title="Posts by Philip Bump">Philip Bump</a>

</header>

The state of Wyoming likes the fossil fuel industry. A lot. So much so that it wants to make sure its kids know everything there is to know about energy development. <a href="http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-lawmakers-ok-development-of-energy-curriculum-for-schools/article_3342e2d7-e536-5635-8440-8ceffe689c45.html">And, so</a>:

State officials and representatives of the energy industry will be asked to develop a course of study focusing on the energy industry and natural resources to be taught in Wyoming schools under a bill approved Thursday by the Legislature’s Joint Education Committee.

The bill, which will now be considered in the Legislature’s general session beginning Jan. 8, is intended to give students more appreciation and knowledge of Wyoming’s resources and opportunities, according to Nick Agopian of Devon Energy, who led an initiative with other energy officials to develop the bill.

</blockquote>

This seems kind of unnecessary. About 5 percent of the population of the state of Wyoming works in an extractive industry: mining, oil and gas extraction, logging, etc. After a dip following the recession, that figure is growing steadily, <a href="http://grist.org/news/support-for-fracking-regulation-drops-even-as-wyoming-finds-new-groundwater-pollution/">thanks largely to fracking</a>.

Doesn’t it seem likely that with one in 20 Wyomingites working in an extractive field, kids have some understanding of the sector?

Here’s <a href="http://trib.com/energy-curriculum/pdf_ae0fc605-03c2-54b3-b014-da11058ac56d.html">some language from the proposed legislation</a>:

The governor’s policy office shall oversee the development of a statewide initiative on energy and natural resource development and use to provide materials and opportunities for use in public education programs. The initiative shall be a joint effort of representatives from energy and natural resource industries and related member organizations, state education agencies, public education stakeholder representatives and the governor’s policy office and shall focus on the development of a curriculum for use in public school education programs which … [e]nsures a balanced approach to energy and natural resource development and use and ensures subject matter expertise is integrated with the requirements of the statewide educational program prescribed by law

</blockquote>

Emphasis added, because that phrase refers to the American Petroleum Institute, et al. Developing curriculum for school kids. Can you imagine?

Or, better: Can you imagine the Fox News Outrage Swarm™ that would result if a state tried to implement a curriculum touting green energy? Literally: imagine it. Imagine what would happen if a state considered a public school curriculum that “ensured a balanced approach” to the use of clean energy, written in part by a solar industry group. Try and come up with the headline that would appear on the Drudge Report, featuring one or all of these words: Indoctrination, Scandal, Taxpayers, Socialism, Nobama.

Luckily, the population of Wyoming is significantly less than the population within a mile radius of where I’m sitting right now. And there’s no guarantee that the state legislature will approve the bill.

If they don’t, Wyoming schoolkids will just have to learn about fossil fuel extraction the traditional way: by <a href="http://grist.org/news/support-for-fracking-regulation-drops-even-as-wyoming-finds-new-groundwater-pollution/">drinking fracking chemicals</a> or when <a href="http://grist.org/news/internal-documents-show-transcanada-hid-pipeline-flaws-before-2011-explosion/">their parents’ place of employment explodes</a>.

===

<h1 class="asset-name" style="color: rgb(132, 22, 40);">Mystery Super PAC and Nonprofit Network Spent Big In PA Senate Race</h1>

<div class="asset-meta"> By Dan Glaun on July 18, 2012 4:29 PM

</div>

<div>More than half the outside spending in Pennsylvania's Senate GOP primary <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=PAS2&cycle=2012">race</a> was funneled through a chain of groups that haven't disclosed the original source of the funds.

The financial gymnastics appear designed to avoid revealing the donors behind campaign advertisements while adhering to the letter of campaign finance law. Furthermore, a lobbyist for a Fortune 500 energy company played a role in the scheme.

<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/">OpenSecrets Blog</a> has <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/07/stealthy-super-pacs-influenced-prim.html">written</a> about <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/recips.php?cmte=C00516112&cycle=2012">Freedom Fund for America's Future</a>, a super PAC that spent about $175,000 on ads attacking Republican candidate Tom Smith in the primary campaign. Because of a loophole in the disclosure schedule, Freedom Fund didn't have to disclose its donors until after the April 24 primary election.

Freedom Fund's <a target="_blank" href="http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00516112">report</a> to the Federal Election Commission last weekend showed that almost all the money it spent -- at least $165,000 -- came from another super PAC: <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00519793&cycle=2012">Fight for the Dream</a>. And Fight for the Dream, while registered with the FEC as of April 26, has disclosed almost nothing other than being registered to a UPS mailbox in an Allentown, Pa., shopping mall. OpenSecrets Blog has learned that the box is rented by Wayne Woodman -- a former finance co-chairman for <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/alsorun.php?cid=N00030953&cycle=2012">Steve Welch</a>, Smith's opponent in the primary.

Woodman confirmed in an interview that he organized Fight for the Dream. Asked why the group hadn't submitted a response, now overdue, to an FEC request for additional information or filed a quarterly report that would disclose its donors, Woodman referred us to Anthony Ferate, who he said was his legal counsel.

Ferate -- who is also a <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?id=Y0000046209L&year=2012">lobbyist</a> for <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00354753&cycle=2012">Devon Energy</a>, a natural gas and oil company based in Oklahoma, and is counsel to the Oklahoma Republican Party -- said in an interview that the filing had been sent to the FEC, and he forwarded us a copy. (Several hours after OpenSecrets Blog received the copy, the report appeared on the FEC's website).

But that report shows that the entirety of Fight for the Dream's funding came from a group called Restore the Dream -- which uses the same UPS mailbox as Fight for the Dream.</div>

<div>

</div>

</div>

Here the chain ends, though: Restore the Dream is a 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofit (so called because of a provision of the Internal Revenue Code), and doesn't have to disclose its donors. OpenSecrets Blog has written about politically active 501(c) groups in its continuing "<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/moneytrail.php">Shadow Money Trail</a>" series. Restore the Dream will have to file a Form 990 report with the IRS, but not until 2014, and even then it won't have to reveal its donors.

When asked if the Restore the Dream and Fight for the Dream pass-throughs were designed to avoid disclosing donors, Ferate maintained that the organizations were above board.

"This was set up within federal election laws," he said. "I would disagree that there's anything to question about transfers between super PACS. In fact, the Democrats are coordinating between their super PACs."

Woodman denied direct responsibility for the manner in which the groups were set up, and said there was no link between the groups and his work on Welch's campaign.

"The structure of this thing was given through legal counsel," he said in a phone interview.

To recap, then: Woodman, after resigning from his position in Welch's campaign, set up the super PAC Fight for the Dream and the nonprofit Restore the Dream in April with the help of Ferate, his legal counsel. Restore the Dream made transfers to Fight for the Dream totaling $174,800 on April 11, 19 and 20. One day after each transaction, Fight for the Dream gave the money to Freedom Fund for America's Future, which used those funds to make nearly all of its $175,000 in ad buys against Welch's opponent Smith on April 19 and 20.

The transactions between the two super PACs and the nondisclosing nonprofit provide a stark example of how disclosure requirements are sometimes rendered meaningless. By law, super PACs must reveal their donors to the public via their reports to the FEC. But when the donor is ultimately another group or an LLC that is under no legal mandate to say where its money is coming from, voters actually learn very little.

Even though Freedom Fund reported its donors in accordance with FEC regulations, the real source of its funding -- in fact, the largest source of outside spending in the Pennsylvania Senate race -- is still effectively unknown.

Smith, a former coal company owner who <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=PAS2&cycle=2012">self-financed</a> his campaign to the tune of $5 million, survived Freedom Fund's attacks, which highlighted Smith's history as a Democrat and accused him of raising taxes as a local official. He defeated Welch, who was backed by Pennsylvania's Republican governor and the state party, and several other candidates in the primary and faces Democratic incumbent Sen. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00027503&cycle=2012">Bob Casey</a> in November.

According to both Woodman and Ferate, Fight for the Dream's efforts did not end with Welch's defeat, and the group will continue to raise and spend money on political campaigns.</div>

</div>

<h4 class="entry-categories-header">Categories:</h4>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/outside-money/501c-groups/">501(c) groups</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/politicians-elections/congressional-elections/">Congressional Elections</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/influence-lobbying/">Influence & Lobbying</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/outside-money/">Outside Money</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/politicians-elections/">Politicians & Elections</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/outside-money/super-pacs/">Super PACs</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=dan%20glaun&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">dan glaun</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=disclosure&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">disclosure</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=fight%20for%20the%20dream&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">fight for the dream</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=freedom%20fund%20for%20america%27s%20future&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">freedom fund for america's future</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=Pennsylvania&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">Pennsylvania</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=super%20pacs&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">super pacs</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">John C. Snyder</h1>

John C. Snyder "founded Snyder Oil Corporation in 1977 and served as chairman and CEO until its merger in 1999 to form Santa Fe Snyder Corporation. He served as Chairman of Santa Fe Snyder until its merger in 2000 with Devon Energy Corporation and his retirement from the company." <a href="http://www.leadnet.org/about_board.asp?bio=jsnyder" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.leadnet.org/about_board.asp?bio=jsnyder" rel="nofollow">[1]</a>

Snyder has served as Chairman of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Snyder_Operating_Company_LLC&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Snyder Operating Company LLC (page does not exist)">Snyder Operating Company LLC</a>, an investment company, since June 2000 and as a director the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Texas_Capital_Bancshares,_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (page does not exist)">Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.</a> since June 1999. Snyder "also currently serves as a <a href="http://www.socointernational.co.uk/corp.php" class="external text" title="http://www.socointernational.co.uk/corp.php" rel="nofollow">director</a> of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SOCO_International_plc" title="SOCO International plc">SOCO International plc</a>, a UK oil and gas exploration company and advisory director of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=4D_Global_Energy_Advisors&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="4D Global Energy Advisors (page does not exist)">4D Global Energy Advisors</a>, a French private equity company, focused on international energy investments." <a href="http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=133900" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=133900" rel="nofollow">[2]</a>

SOCO International plc was "set up by French businessman <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Maugein" title="Patrick Maugein">Patrick Maugein</a>". <a href="http://www.africaintelligence.com/ps/AN/Arch/AEM/AEM_355.asp" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.africaintelligence.com/ps/AN/Arch/AEM/AEM_355.asp" rel="nofollow">[3]</a>

<hr />

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="javascript:toggleToc()" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_C._Snyder#Profiles">1 Profiles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_C._Snyder#External_links">2 External links</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_C._Snyder#Campaign_Contributions">2.1 Campaign Contributions</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_C.Snyder#Articles.26_Commentary">2.2 Articles & Commentary</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Profiles</h2>

"From 1977 to 1999, Mr. Snyder served as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Snyder Oil Corporation, an energy exploration and production company. In 1999, Snyder Oil Corporation was <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-14-1999/0000844448&EDATE=" class="external text" title="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-14-1999/0000844448&EDATE=" rel="nofollow">merged</a> into Santa Fe Snyder Corporation, an energy exploration and production company, where Mr. Snyder served as Chairman of the Board of Directors through June 2000 when it was merged into Devon Energy Corporation." --<a href="http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=133900" class="external text" title="http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=133900" rel="nofollow">Forbes</a>, accessed November 2, 2005.

John C. Snyder, Chairman and a director of Snyder Oil, "founded a predecessor of the Company in 1978. From 1973 to 1977, Mr. Snyder was an independent oil operator in Texas and Oklahoma. Previously, he was a director and the Executive Vice President of May Petroleum, Inc. where he served from 1971 to 1973. From 1969 to 1971, Mr. Snyder was with Canadian-American Resources Fund, Inc., which he founded. From 1964 to 1966, Mr. Snyder was employed by Humble Oil and 17 Refining Company (currently <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil" title="Exxon Mobil">Exxon Co., USA</a>) as a petroleum engineer. Mr. Snyder received his Bachelor of Science degree in Petroleum Engineering from the University of Oklahoma and his Masters degree in Business Administration from the Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. In 1995, Mr. Snyder was named Wildcatter of the Year by the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States. He currently serves as a director of SOCI plc and is a member of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Petroleum_Council" title="National Petroleum Council">National Petroleum Council</a>." --<a href="http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=7854952" class="external text" title="http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=7854952" rel="nofollow">Source: Snyder Oil SEC filings</a>.

<h2>External links</h2>

<h3>Campaign Contributions</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.melissadata.com/Lookups/fec.asp?zip=76107" class="external text" title="http://www.melissadata.com/Lookups/fec.asp?zip=76107" rel="nofollow">Federal Election Contributions by Zip Code (2003, 2004)</a>.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php?search=1&type=loc&addr=2101+INDIAN+CREEK+DR&zip=76107" class="external text" title="http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php?search=1&type=loc&addr=2101+INDIAN+CREEK+DR&zip=76107" rel="nofollow">Fundrace Neighbor Search 2004</a>: Fort Worth, Texas.</li>

</ul>

<h3>Articles & Commentary</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/discover/dix71605.htm" class="external text" title="http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/discover/dix71605.htm" rel="nofollow">"Snyder Oil discovers more oil in Mongolia,"</a> Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections, April 2, 1997.</li>

<li><a href="http://boards.fool.co.uk/MessagePrint.asp?mid=7854952" class="external text" title="http://boards.fool.co.uk/MessagePrint.asp?mid=7854952" rel="nofollow">Shares S / SOCO International Inc.</a>, The Motley Fool, April 21, 2003.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/BWIRE/20031218/233525237" class="external text" title="http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/BWIRE/20031218/233525237" rel="nofollow">"Texas Capital Bank Celebrates Five Year Anniversary,"</a> Globe and Mail.com, December 18, 2003.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067033/posts" class="external text" title="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067033/posts" rel="nofollow">"Before the War, the Sale of Iraqi Oil Enriched a Multitude of Intermediaries,"</a> Le Monde (<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Free_Republic" title="Free Republic">Free Republic</a>), January 29, 2004.</li>

</ul>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Oil_industry" title="Category:Oil industry">Oil industry</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Politicians" title="Category:Politicians">Politicians</a></div>

</div>

</div>

=

liberty fdn

bs

William F. Whitsitt, Ph.D.

Executive Vice President, Public Affairs

Devon Energy Corporation

Dr. Bill Whitsitt is Executive Vice President for Public Affairs at Devon Energy

Corporation of Oklahoma City, one of the largest U.S. independent oil and gas

exploration and production (E&P) companies — and a high-tech leader in the

development of America’s abundant shale natural gas resources.

Before joining Devon, Bill had an extensive career in

the independent E&P sector involving public affairs,

government relations and oil and gas marketing.

Bill came to Devon in 2008 from his position as

president of the American Exploration & Production

Council, the national trade association representing the

largest U.S. independents.

Previous positions included director, Government

Affairs, for one of the world’s largest law firms. Bill

had also been vice president of worldwide Marketing

and Public Affairs for U.S. independent Oryx Energy

Company, a spin-off from Sun Company (the Sun

Oil/Sunoco parent). At Sun, Bill had been Director of Legislative Affairs. Before

his energy career, he was chief of staff for a U.S. senator and a legislative

assistant in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Prior to his government service, Bill was a CBS News Fellow at Columbia

University, then formed and directed the Montana Television Network news

organization. He received his doctorate in Public Administration from The

George Washington University in Washington, D.C., where he then taught

graduate level courses in public policy formulation and federal institutions.

Dr. Whitsitt is active with key energy-related organizations. A former chairman

of the Communications Committee of America’s Natural Gas Alliance, he was

instrumental in the design and launch of its national communications research

and advertising programs. He currently leads important regional and state

advocacy and educational programs designed to protect and improve the

business and policy environments in which Devon and its counterparts operate.

He is also a trustee of the Greater Montana Foundation.

</div></div>

Devon Energy

Attachments