DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Energy Information Administration will discontinue oil forms

In another seemingly benign move, the federal government is quietly removing more information from public circulation. This time with regards to oil production. More specifically, domestic versus foreign production.

The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration will discontinue the use of Forms EIA–182, ‘‘Domestic Crude Oil First Purchase Report,’’ and EIA–856, ‘‘Monthly Foreign Crude Oil Acquisition Report’’.

These forms are used to compile data for forecasting purposes, and to identify quantities of oil purchased domestically and internationally. It is a sly attempt to blind the DOE and the population as to how dependent the US really is on foreign sources of oil. July 2006, is the last time this data will be collected.

The kicker is that collection of these reports are mandated by Public Laws 93-275, and 95-91, but the EIA's reasoning for discontinuance is budgetary shortfalls. The discontinuance may be illegal. The EIA gives reference in the Federal Register to section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 2005, 44 USC, Chapter 35, as legal authority to ignore the law and cease to collect this data. The data collected by these forms is too important, especially since Bush himself said in his SOTU speech we are "addicted to foreign oil", to allow the tenuous authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 2005, to be the basis by which the EIA decides it can eliminate the collection of this information. We are shooting ourselves in the foot...

Or, this may be part of a larger plan to eliminate the ability for the average person to see the true economic picture of the US. Consider this: The discontiunance of the collection of oil data will come three months after the US Treasury discontinues publishing the figures for the M3 Money Supply. And, a delegation of Senators recently visited China to "encourage" them to revalue (float) the yuan nearer the weakened US dollar. The means of encouragement: Threats of a nearly 30% tariff on Chinese goods.

Might this reflect that those in Washington may be trying to hide the dim economic outlook of the US, or might they be trying to hide the dim nature of Bush's fiscal responsibility?